Construction commenced before the enforcement of legal provisions cannot be deemed illegal under those provisions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was the appellant in Appeal No.132 of 2013 on the files of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. That appeal was preferred by the petitioner mounting challenge against Ext.P14 order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is against the construction made the 7th respondent herein/the second respondent therein in his neighbouring property. The contention of the petitioner is that the said construction was effected in violation of the provisions under section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (for short the 'Act') and therefore, the construction to the extent made in violation of the said provisions is liable to be demolished. Such a contention was taken up based on the allegation that construction was effected without leaving a distance of W.P.(C).3157/14 2

3 metres from the boundary of the land abutting the national highway. Earlier, raising such allegations, he preferred Ext.P1 complaint before the first respondent. Ultimately, the complaint preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as per Ext.P14 finding that the foundation of the building in question was completed in the year 1993 and in such circumstances, no interference is called for at the instance of the petitioner. As noticed hereinbefore, Appeal No.132 of 2013 was preferred before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions against Ext.P14 order and ultimately, dismissed the same and confirmed Ext.P14 as per Ext.P18 order. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P18.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Government Pleader. A perusal of Ext.P18 would reveal that the Tribunal declined to interfere with Ext.P14 order and virtually confirmed it and dismissed the appeal. There cannot be any doubt W.P.(C).3157/14 3 with respect to the position that an order passed by the Tribunal invites interference only if it is totally perverse or passed in total disregard to any provision of law or totally against the weight of evidence and on such other permissible grounds. A scanning of Ext.P18 order would reveal that the first respondent herein had filed a written statement resisting the contentions raised by the writ petitioner before the Tribunal. It was stated therein that the occupancy certificate was given to 5 shop rooms constructed by the 7th respondent herein during the year 1999-2000 and that the petitioner came with a complaint only after a long lapse of 13 years. It was also stated therein that the ground floor was constructed before the coming into force of the relevant provisions of the Act. The second respondent before the Tribunal viz., the 7th respondent herein, had also filed a written statement resisting the contentions of the petitioner in the appeal stating that it was filed only to wreck vengeance and as a counter blast to his lawful action in initiating action against the illegal construction effected by the writ petitioner. It was specifically stated W.P.(C).3157/14 4 therein that the construction was over in 1999-2000 and the first floor was constructed in the year 2006-2007. It was the further contention that since the construction of the building in question had started prior to the coming into force of the provisions under section 220(b) of the Act, the interdiction thereunder would not be applicable in regard to the said construction. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal formulated two points for consideration viz.,whether the impugned order was legally sustainable and if so what should be the order as to relief? The said points were jointly considered. After adverting to section 220(b) as also section 2(iii) of the Act and taking note of the factual position obtained and after perusing the documents, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the construction of the first floor could not be said to be illegal or unauthorised. The Act was m