The tribunal's decision regarding appealability under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was upheld, stressing proper procedure in unauthorized construction cases.

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 quashing n Exhibit P13 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram directing the Tribunal to consider and dispose of Exhibit P9 Appeal on merits and in accordance with law.

ii. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that Exhibit P8 Order is the Final Order passed by the 1st respondent in continuation of Exhibit P5 Provisional Order under Section 235 W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 and Exhibit P9 Appeal is maintainable before the 3rd respondent under Sectionn 276(4) of the , 1994 .

iii. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P8 order of the 1st respondent directing the 1st respondent to number the building under Section 235 of the Act holding that the building of the petitioner described in Exhibit P6 and P8 Order are not an Unauthorized construction.

iv. Issue such other writ, order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P13 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (for short ‘tribunal’). According to the petitioner, the appeal is maintainable only before the tribunal, and the finding of the tribunal is not correct. Therefore, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner takes me through Ext.P5 provisional order. The counsel submitted that the first sentence in Ext.P5 itself, it is stated that, it is a notice issued under Section 235A.A, 235W and 235V of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 (for short ‘Act’). The counsel again submitted that, Ext.P5 is confirmed by Ext.P8. The counsel also takes me through the concluding portion of Ext.P8, in which it is stated that the building is treated as unauthoirised. In such circumstances, the counsel submitted that the remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal, and the tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal stating that the appeal is not maintainable before the tribunal, and it is to be filed before the Panchayath Committee (for short ‘Committee’). The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, once the Panchayat decided that the construction is unauthorised, there is no purpose in filing an appeal before the Committee, because it is an order passed under Section 235W of the Act. The counsel appearing for the Panchayt supported the impugned order.

5. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the Panchayt. This Court perused Ext.P5 provisional order. In the concluding portion of the provisional order, it is clearly stated that, if no steps are taken by the petitioner, necessary steps will be taken in accordance to Section 235W of the Act. That itself shows that the said notice issued as evident by Ext.P5 is not a notice issued in accordance to Section 235W of the Act. Section 235W of the Act deals about the demolition or alternation of building works, unlawfully commenced, carrying on or completed. Admittedly, there is no direction in Ext.P8 order for demolition of the unauthorised construction. Admittedly, there is no direction in Ext.P8 regarding alteration of building works unlawfully commenced, or carrying on or completed.

6. If that is the case, there is no point in arguing that it is a proceedings under Section 235W of the Act. I make it clear that, if any such notice or proceedings are initiated against t