Natural justice mandates due process and proper procedures in administrative actions regarding property regulations.

Dated this the 18^th day of December, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated

21.03.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.27350 of 2012.

Appellant was the 3^rd respondent in the W.P.(C).

2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the 1^st respondent seeking to quash Exhibits P2, P3 and P4, pursuant to which, she had been called upon to demolish certain portions of her residential building alleging violation of the set back requirements mandated by the Building Rules. The 1^st respondent had contended that the said order/notices had been issued at the instance of the appellant, who is the adjacent neighbour.

3. The learned Single Judge had vide the impugned judgment, allowed the Writ Petition, and had held that for determining whether the construction is impermissible or against the sanctioned plan or is amenable to regularisation as per the Kerala Building Regularisation Rules, there had to be a demarcation and measurement in the presence of the parties. Since no opportunity had been given to the 1^st respondent to file even objections, the impugned orders for demolition were violative of the principles of natural justice, unsustainable and accordingly they were quashed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred this Writ Appeal.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment is erroneous in law and facts and is thus fit to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge had failed to note that the final order dated 31.12.2011 had been rendered after hearing the parties and that the same had not been challenged by the 1^st respondent. It is contended that in the absence of a challenge as against the order dated 31.12.2011, the learned Single Judge ought not have allowed the Writ Petition. Notice had been issued to the husband of the 1^st respondent and no violation of natural justice could be alleged in view of the said notice that had been issued. It is submitted that the principles of natural justice was an empty formality since the building had been admittedly constructed without obtaining a building permit. The learned Single Judge had erred in holding that regularisation rules were liable to be considered since the 1^st respondent had not submitted any application for regularisation and hence there was no construction that was liable to be regularised. It is thus prayed that the impugned judgment may be set aside and the Writ Appeal allowed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge had been validly rendered and does not call for any interference. The learned Single Judge had properly appreciated that after completing the construction in the year 2000, the house had been numbered and the building tax due to the Panchayat was also being regularly paid. During the relevant time when the construction was effected, there was no Rule regulating the construction of buildings in the Panchayat and no violation could have been alleged subsequently on the strength of a Rule that had come into force after the commencement of construction. The learned Single Judge had validly concluded that the role of the Ombudsman was only recommendatory in nature, and no direction in the nature of mandamus as had been issued in Exhibit P2 could have been issued by the Ombudsman. The learned Single Judge had also noted that the notice sent to the husband of the 1^st respondent based on the Building Rules of 1999 and some inspection in which the 1^st respondent was never associated are insufficient. There had been no demarca