IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33873 of 2010(H)
1. SRI.KURUNIYAN MUHAMED ANWAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. P.V.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 65 YEARS,
3. P.DEVADASAN,
4. SYAMALA.P.P.,
5. RAJAN.P.P.,
6. NALINI.P.P.,
7. SUJATHA.P.P.,
8. RAVI.P.P.,
9. SARASWATHI.M.,
For Petitioner :SRI.NIRMAL. S
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :10/11/2010
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 33873 OF 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P6 letter sent by the first respondent to the third
respondent and others informing them that their application for
regularisation of the construction of a residential building in the
lands situated in Survey No.183/01 of Othukkungal Village in
Malappuram district stands allowed is under challenge in this writ
petition.
2. The Secretary had earlier passed an order of regularisation
on an application filed by the third respondent before him. That
order was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the
Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions on the ground that
the application is signed by an incompetent person. By Ext.P2 order
passed on 22.4.2010, the Tribunal held that as the application was
not signed by all the co-owners it should have been rejected. The
Tribunal held that if a proper application for regularisation is
submitted by all the co-owners of the property, the same shall be
disposed of in terms of Rule 146 of the Kerala Municipality Building
Rules. Ext.P6 order was thereafter passed evidently on an
WPC No.33873/2010 2
application submitted by all the co-owners. The petitioner challenges
Ext.P6 essentially on the ground that before it was passed, he was
not put on notice or heard.
3. The pleadings disclose that the claim made by the petitioner
that he is the owner of the land where the building is put up was
rejected by the Court of the Munsiff of Tirur which dismissed O.S. No.
107 of 2004 filed by him in that regard and that A.S. No. 113 of 2009
filed by him is pending before the Sub Court, Tirur. As the
competent civil court has already found that the petitioner has no title
to the land where the building is situated, I am of the opinion that the
petitioner had no right to be put on notice or heard before the
application for regularisation submitted by the third respondent and
others was allowed. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the plea
raised by the petitioner that failure to put him on notice vitiates
Ext.P6.
I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The
writ petition fails and is dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
(JUDGE)
vps
WPC No.33873/2010 3
WPC No.33873/2010 4