JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This Court notices that the petitioner had repeatedly approached the 1st respondent Panchayat seeking regularisation of a construction. According to the petitioner, he purchased the property in the year 2000, which had a building with a thatched roof. The petitioner states that he sought for changing the roofing of the building by concreting the same and also for constructing a staircase inside the building, however, this was not allowed and hence, the petitioner carried out the construction by changing the roof of the building. Later, he sought for regularisation of the construction. The petitioner relies on the technical report at Ext.P3, the direction of the Government at Ext.P6, the certificate of the PWD at Ext.P8, and the findings in the letter of the Government at Ext.P10, to contend that only the roof is changed and no other additional constructions are made. He also seeks to rely on the provisions of Rules 100 and 102 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, to state that regularisation can be granted in the afore circumstances.

3. The petitioner states that in spite of the earlier direction issued by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Ext.P2 regularisation application has been rejected, contending that there are additional constructions. The afore order of the Panchayat is sustained by the Tribunal by Ext.P23 order. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P23 issued as above, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.

4. In spite of the pendency of the writ petition for more than five years, the respondent Panchayat has not filed any counter affidavit in the matter. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Panchayat on 11.06.2026, and there is no appearance on its behalf today as well.

5. This Court notices that Ext.P23 order has been issued by the Tribunal as if the existing building was demolished and an entirely new building was constructed. However, the said order does not discuss about the impact of Exts.P3, P6, P8, and P9. Those documents/proceedings are relied on by the petitioner in support of his contentions. As found in Ext.P23, if a new building was constructed after demolishing the existing structure, the petitioner is not entitled to succeed. However, it appears that the findings in Ext.P23 do not take into account Exts.P3, P6, P8, and P9. Therefore, it requires to be set aside, directing fresh consideration.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside Ext.P23 and the Tribunal to pass fresh orders as directed above as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from today.