A writ petition was disposed of as the authorized constructions were regularized, allowing the appellant to challenge decisions in related proceedings.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent not to regularise the unauthorised constructions carried out by 3rd and 4th respondents in Block 38, Re Sy No. 77/1 and 77/2 of Kollam East Village.

ii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to take into consideration Ext.P.7. and Ext.P.8. representations after affording an opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner before passing orders on the application, if any, filed by the 3rd and 4th respondents for regularisation of unauthorised constructions carried out in Block 38, Re Sy No. 77/1 and 77/2 of Kollam East Village.

iii. To issue such other writs or pass such other orders as this Hon’ble court deems fit in the interests of justice. (SIC)

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration on

18.01.2023, this Court passed the following order:

“Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 appears and seeks time to file counter affidavit.

Post after two weeks.

Any orders passed on the Building Regularisation Application will be subject to further orders in this Writ Petition.”

3. Thereafter, on 12.08.2024, when this matter came up along with WP(C) No.33904/2023, this Court passed the following order:

“It is seen from the Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.33904 of

2023, that all the defects alleged against the petitioner in Serial Nos.2 to 6 have been cured and the compounding fee was not accepted, only due to the pendency of W.P.(C) No.422 of 2023.

In view of the above, there will be direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to accept the compounding fee payable by the petitioner within three weeks from today. This will be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court. Post on 01.10.2024.”

4. Now it is conceded by both sides that the alleged unauthorized construction is already regularized and number is also allotted. If that is the case, this writ petition need not be retained here. The petitioner already challenged the order regularizing the construction by filing WP(C) No.33160/2024. Therefore the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are left open and the petitioner can raise the same in WP(C) No.33160/2024.

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.

sd/-