The court directed the municipality to consider the regularization of constructions existing prior to a specific date, ensuring adherence to statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be the owner of a property in Survey No.1139 in Chakkanthara Village, Palakkad Taluk. According to the petitioner, he had constructed a residential building prior to 1992 on the basis of a building permit issued by the Palakkad Municipality. The petitioner further states that an application for “alteration of the building” was filed before the Municipality on the basis of which Ext.P1 building permit dated 27.03.1992 was issued permitting construction in the form of “alteration of the building”. The petitioner further states that the construction pursuant to Ext.P1 was carried out and tax was also collected from the petitioner by the Municipality as evident by Ext.P2 receipt dated 24.12.2021. At that point of time, the 3^rd respondent, who is none other than the immediate neighbor of the petitioner, sought to raise a complaint before the Municipality alleging that the construction has been carried out without leaving the setback required under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019. On the basis of the complaint filed by the 3^rd respondent, a show cause notice was issued by the Municipality directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction immediately. The Municipality also noticed that the 3^rd respondent had not provided any NOC to the petitioner with respect to the additional construction carried out as above. The petitioner had, in the meantime, sought for regularization with reference to the provisions of Section 407 of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994 as evident by Ext.P4 application dated 25.10.2022. Even thereafter, the Municipality having issued Ext.P7 dated 01.08.2023 directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction, the petitioner has approached this Court with the captioned writ petition.

2. Heard Smt.Kavery S.Thambi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Palakkad Municipality as well as Sri.Sajeev Rajan – the 3^rd respondent – who appeared in person.

3. Sri.Sajeev Rajan, the party in person raised serious objections to the construction carried out by the petitioner essentially pointing out that the required “1 m” setback was not provided that he never provided any NOC to the petitioner etc and therefore adding that the building in question requires to be demolished.

4. On the other hand, Smt.Kaveri S.Thambi, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out to Ext.P4 to state that the request for regularization ought to be considered in accordance with law and therefore, the coercive steps taken by the Municipality require to be interdicted.

5. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records.

6. Admittedly, there was no NOC provided by the 3^rd respondent. However, the question arises as to whether the building in question was in existence even prior to 1992 and the construction objected to by the 3^rd respondent was only a lateral construction made on the existing building. However, from the pleadings on record, the Municipality has not produced any document in support of the contentions raised by the petitioner as above. But, the fact that Ext.P1 has been issued in the year 1992, with reference to an existing building for the purpose of “alteration” requires to be noticed. Therefore, ultimately it is for the Government to consider the applicability or other wise for the provisions of Section 407 of the Kerala Municipality Act with reference to the regularization sought for pursuant to Ext.P5.

In such circumstances, it is for the Municipality to take note of Ext.P4 application and to refer the same to the Government for an appropriate decision with specific reference to the provisions of the statute including the regularization rule