IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 8860 of 2007(D)
1. VIKAS.M.V., S/O.BHASKARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KANHANGAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY, KANHANGAD MUNICIPALITY,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
4. K.G.BENUGOPAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.I.SAGEER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :16/03/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.8860 of 2007
----------------------------------
Dated this 16th day of March, 2007
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.K.I. Sageer Ibrahim, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai, the learned Standing
Counsel, who has taken notice, for the respondent Municipality.
Even though it was very persuasive submissions, which were
addressed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
having regard to the narrow contours of this court’s jurisdiction
to correct orders passed by the Judicial Tribunal under the
extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, I do no think that this
Court will be justified in interfering with this matter. I find that
the Tribunal has noticed the fact that the 4th respondent, a
portion of whose property having original extent of one cent
was acquired for road is now left with a very small extent and
hence felt that he should be permitted to make necessary
alterations to the existing remnant building, so that after the
alterations the building will conform to the building rules. The
WPC No.8860/2007 2
Tribunal has stated that the 4th respondent herein should be
given an opportunity to make his building regularised. The
Tribunal has directed him to submit an undertaking before the
Municipality within 30 days from that day, to effect alterations to
the building directed to be demolished as per Order No.E2-
962/2006 so as to make the same in conformity with the
statutory provisions and to apply for its regularization.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Municipality does not have the power to regularise buildings
which have been constructed in violation of the building rules.
3. I cannot agree with the counsel for the petitioner. The
direction is that the Municipality shall consider the regularization
application only after it is convinced that the building after
alterations are effected to it by the appellant (4th respondent),
conforms to the building rules.
The writ petition fails and will stand dismissed. However,
there will be a direction to the Municipality to pass orders on the
regularization application only after conducting local inspection of
the building after alterations are effected by the 4th respondent
in terms of the affidavit to be submitted by him with notice to the
WPC No.8860/2007 3
petitioner. Final order on the regularization application also shall
be passed after hearing the petitioner also. Even if the
Municipality is inclined to assign a number to the building
pending application for regularization, such numbering will be
provisional and subject to the final decision to be passed on the
regularisation application and the 4th respondent should be
specifically informed about the same.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Judge
dpk