The court determined that pending geologist actions cannot be a valid reason to reject an application for regularization of construction in local governance.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" a) A Writ or order in the nature of Certiorari may be issued quashing Exhibit P9 letter dated 7-11-

2024, issued by the first respondent;

b) A Writ or order in the nature of Mandamus may be issued to the first respondent directing him to consider and pass on the applications for regularisation of construction of compound wall submitted by the petitioner on 18-6-2024 followed by Exhibit P7 application within a time frame."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner is a co-owner of 60.30 Ares of land in Thondernadu Grama Panchayat, as per Ext.P2 is the submission. In May 2024, the petitioner had cleared the bushes in the property and demolished the old house therein using an excavator, is the further submission. Since the petitioner wanted to prevent soil erosion, he constructed a compound wall without obtaining a building permit. The 1^st respondent had issued Ext.P3 notice. Petitioner replied vide Ext.P4 and applied for the regularisation of the construction. The 1^st respondent has now issued Ext.P9, stating that the petitioner had removed earth from the plot, that it has been reported to the Geologist for action, and that the application for regularisation could be considered only after that action by the competent Authority. Petitioner challenged Ext.P9. Hence, this Writ Petition.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. This Court perused Ext.P9. The only reason mentioned in Ext.P9 for not considering the regularisation application is that the matter is to be reported to the Geologist for action, and the application for regularisation can be considered only after that. I am of the considered opinion that it is not a ground to reject an application for regularisation. The Panchayat is bound to pass appropriate orders on merit based on the application submitted by the petitioner. The competent Authority is free to do the needful in accordance with law, if there is any violation of law. But that is not a reason to reject an application for regularisation. Therefore, the impugned order can be set aside, and there can be a direction to the Panchayat to consider the regularisation application on merit within a time frame.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. Ext.P9 is set aside.

2. The competent authority among the respondents will consider Ext.P7 and pass an appropriate order in it on merit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-