Unauthorised construction claims require thorough consideration of procedural compliance, but may be dismissed if the construction is complete and compliance issues are deemed oversight.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is stated to be the owner of the property in Survey No.125/1 of Peringavu Village, Thrissur District. The 2^nd respondent sought to construct an apartment complex on an adjacent property. Since according to the petitioner, the construction by the 2^nd respondent was unauthorised and by making encroachments into the petitioner's property, he filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions on 10.05.2022 along with an application seeking direction to the Thrissur Corporation not to issue any statutory approvals/permits/certificates as regards the construction carried out by the 2^nd respondent. The Tribunal, by Ext.P2 order dated 11.05.2022, restrained the Secretary of the Corporation from issuing any approval/certificates with reference to the apartments constructed as above. According to the petitioner, though the order at Ext.P2 was served on the Corporation on 13.06.2022, the Corporation proceeded to issue occupancy certificate which would tantamount to contempt of the directions issued by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal seeking appropriate steps being initiated against the Secretary of the respondent – Corporation. It may also be noticed that the 2^nd respondent had challenged Ext.P2 before this Court in W.P. (C) No.20275 of 2023, and by Ext.P10 judgment dated 22.06.2023, the 2^nd respondent was permitted to approach the Tribunal seeking modification of the order at Ext.P2 since the order at Ext.P2 was an ex-parte order. The 2^nd respondent, therefore, approached the Tribunal seeking modification of the order at Ext.P2, essentially pointing out that the appeal before the Tribunal was not maintainable. The Tribunal, by the impugned order at Ext.P21, has taken note of the stand taken by the Secretary of the Corporation that it was only an “oversight” which resulted in the issuance of the occupancy certificate and has accepted the afore explanation leading to the rejection of the complaint filed by the petitioner as against the violation of Ext.P2 order.

2. I have heard Smt. Amrin Fathima, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Santhosh P. Poduval, the learned Standing Counsel for the Thrissur Corporation and Sri.Aswin Gopakumar for the 2^nd respondent.

3. With reference to the contents of Ext.P2 as well as the stand of the petitioner that Ext.P2 was served on 13.06.2022, I find much force in the contention raised by the petitioner that there is failure to act on the basis of Ext.P2 order. However, the fact that only the occupancy certificate was issued by the Secretary would show that the construction was already over, and that, only on account of this and by way of an “oversight”, the Secretary issued the occupancy certificate. This contention requires favourable consideration. This is all the more so, in view of the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal is stated to have been rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the same is not maintainable, by an order dated 7.08.2025.

In that view of the matter, though prima facie, the allegation raised against the Corporation appears to be correct, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition any further, and therefore, this writ petition would stand dismissed.

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE