Court directed reconsideration of occupancy certificate application emphasizing trivial violations should not hinder property regularization under relevant rules.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit – P5 dated 15.07.2022 and Exhibit – P6 letter dated 09.01.2025 addressed to the District Collector, Kottayam issued by the Manimala Grama Panchayath Secretary and quash the same as illegal.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 3 and 4 to implement the order dated 03.01.2025 (Exhibit – P1) and order dated 17.12.2024 (Exhibit – P4) of the 2^nd respondent and number the building after issuing the occupancy certificate.

(iii) To dispense with the production of the translation in to English, the Exhibit in Malayalam, pending disposal of the Writ Petition Civil.

(iv) Grand such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-implementation of the order of the District Collector dated 03.01.2025, as seen in Ext.P4. The petitioner constructed a building based on Ext.P2 building permit. On 05.12.2024, the petitioner submitted an application to the Minister for Local Self Government Institutions for numbering the building and issuance of occupancy certificate. Ext.P3 is the application. Based on the same, the District Collector as per Ext.P4 directed the Secretary, Grama Panchayat to regularise the case of the petitioner as per the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules , 2019 (for short ‘Rules, 2019’), since the measurement is negligible. The construction of the building was completed, and an application for occupancy certificate was also submitted. But, as per Ext.P5, the Secretary of the Panchayat directed the petitioner to rectify the mistakes and to resubmit the application. According to the petitioner, Ext.P5 letter and proceedings thereafter are based on the wrong premise that there is violation of Rules, 2019. The petitioner submitted that, even if the contention of the Secretary of the Panchayat is accepted, the violation is trivial which can be ignored in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Mohammed Habeebulla and Others v. Corporation of Cochin and Another [2021 (3) KHC 201] . The counsel also relied on Rule 6(4)(i) of the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation Of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2024 (for short ‘Rules, 2024’). Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat.

4. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat takes me through Ext.R3(a), produced along with the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4, which is a proceeding issued by the Town Planner to the Panchayat.

5. This Court considered the dictum laid down by this Court in Mohammed Habeebulla’s case (supra). It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:

“10. Therefore, keeping in mind the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court as above, and taking into account the fact that the lack of sufficient parking space ought to have been provided under the Rules, is of trivial in nature in the case at hand; the fact that the petitioner has already entered into an arrangement with the neighbouring property owner to satisfy the requirement of the Rules, 1999; the other environmental issues that can occur, if demolition takes place; and to protect the interest of the purchasers / occupants of the building, I am of the view, suitable fine can be imposed to square up the issue. Moreover, this is a case where the constructions were carried out after secur