Allowed

John.M.Sebastian, v. Marangattupilly Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC15 Feb 2021WP(C)/14630/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that a Panchayat cannot deny a building number to a structure constructed based on valid No-objection Certificates issued before the applicable building rules were enforced, finding the petitioner entitled to the relief despite unrelated procedural bars.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to assign a building number to the petitioner's construction treating it as legitimately constructed within two months.

John.M.Sebastian, Vs Marangattupilly Grama Panchayath — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.14630 OF 2019(C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JOHN.M.SEBASTIAN, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.SEBASTIAN, MANIKAMKUZHI HOUSE, KURIANAD P.O., MONIPPALLY, KOTTAYAM- 686636.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI SRI.ABY J AUGUSTINE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 MARANGATTUPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MARANGATTUPILLY POST, KOTTAYAM- 686635.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, MARANGATTUPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MARANGATTUPILLY POST, KOTTAYAM- 686635.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM- 686001.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC, SC, MARANGATTUPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

GP. RENJITA

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-02-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C) No.14630 of 2019

¶18

..2..

¶19

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶20

W.P.(C) No.14630 of 2019

¶21

Dated this t he 15 th day of February, 2021

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Petitioner owns an item of property measuring 1.73 Ares within the limits of the first respondent Grama Panchayat. The land adjoining the land of the petitioner measuring 4.22 Ares belongs to Maman, the brother of the petitioner. The lands of the petitioner and his brother are lying abutting a public road. During 2005, the petitioner and his brother decided to put up a commercial building in the lands held by them. Constructions within the limits of the first respondent Panchayat were not governed then by the building rules. The procedure in place then for construction was to obtain No-objection Certificate from the Panchayat. The petitioner and his brother therefore applied to the Panchayat for No-objection Certificates for their proposed construction and they have been

¶24

W.P.(C) No.14630 of 2019

¶25

..3..

¶26

issued Exts.P1 and P2 No-objection Certificates by the panchayat subject to the condition that there shall be a minimum open space of 3 meters fr om the abutting road to the building line. On the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 No-objection Certificates, the petitioner and his brother constructed the building proposed by them leaving 3 meters open space between the road line and the building line. On completing the construction of the building, the petitioner applied to the Panchayat for building number. As the road abutting the lands was being developed then by the State Government under the Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP), the Secretary of the Panchayat sought the No-objection Certificate of the Executive Engineer of the KSTP for considering the application of the petitioner for building number. In the meanwhile, the Government extended the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 to all Grama Panchayats in the State with effect from 06.06.2007. Ext.P4 is the No-objection Certificate issued by the Executive Engineer of KSTP to the panchayat. In Ext.P4, it is stated that if the building is one constructed leaving 5 meters open space in between the road line and the building line and in accordance with the building rules, the

¶27

W.P.(C) No.14630 of 2019

¶28

..4..

¶29

same can be numbered. It is stated by the petitioner that though he has left a clear open space of 5 meters between the building line and the road line, there is an overhanging projection in the building to the open space to a distance of almost 1 meter. Further, the construction of the building was not conforming to the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 which came to be extended in the panchayat after a substantial portion of the construction was over. In the circumstances, building number sought by the petitioner has been declined by the panchayat placing reliance on Ext.P4 Noobjection Certificate.

¶30

While so, the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 came into force in the State. It is stated by the petitioner that as he was assured by the Secretary of the Panchayat that the construction would be regularized, if he prefers an application for regularization of the construction in accordance with the said Rules, without understanding the legal implications of making such a request, he preferred Ext.P5 application for regularization of the building in accordance with the said Rules. Ext.P5 application has not been considered by the Panchayat. The petitioner then

¶31

W.P.(C) No.14630 of 2019

¶32

..5..

¶33

preferred W.P.(C) No.21748 of 2013 alleging that insofar as the building has been constructed on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 Noobjection Certificates long before the introduction of building rules in the Panchayat, the Panchayat is bound to assign building number to the said building. W.P.(C) No.21748 of 2013 was disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment with a direction to the Secretary of the Panchayt to consider and pass orders on the application preferred by the petitioner for assignment of building number. Pursuant to the direction in Ext.P8 judgment, Ext.R2(a) order was passed by the Secretary of the Panchayat rejecting the request of the petitioner for assignment of building number, taking the stand that since the building does not conform to the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011, the same cannot be numbered.

¶34

It is stated by the petitioner that he was thereafter required by the Secretary of the Panchayat to prefer an application for regularization of the construction in accordance with the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularization of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2014 and the petitioner has accordingly submitted Ext.P11 application under the said Rules. On Ext.P11 application, the

¶35

..6..

¶36

W.P.(C) No.14630 of 2019

¶37

District Town Planner issued Ext.P12 communication to the Secretary of the Panchayat pointing out the defects in Ext.P11 application and requiring the Secretary to cure those defects. At that stage, it is seen that the petitioner has moved the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, for redressal of his grievance concerning the refusal of the Panchayat in assigning building number to the building constructed by him. The complaint preferred by the petitioner in this regard was disposed of by the Ombudsman as per Ext.P13 order holding that the construction does not suffer from any serious violations of the building rules, and directing the Panchayat to assign building number sought by the petitioner. Ext.P13 order has been quashed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.24199 of 2017 at the instance of the Panchayat as per Ext.P14 judgment on the groun d that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to issue a direction as done in Ext.P13 order. It was however, observed in Ext.P14 judgment that the said judgment will not preclude the petitioner from seeking regularization of the building, after curing the defects noted in Ext.P12 communication. As per Ext.P14 judgment, this Court also directed the Panchayat to number the

¶38

W.P.(C) No.14630 of 2019

¶39

..7..

¶40

building constructed by the petitioner provisionally subject to the outcome of the application for regularization. Though the petitioner challenged Ext.P14 judgment in W.A.No.2429 of 2018, the same was later withdrawn. The present writ petition was instituted by the petitioner thereupon seeking direction to the Panchayat to assign building number to the building. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that insofar as the building has been constructed strictly in accordance with Exts.P1 and P2 No-objection Certificates, the Panchayat cannot refuse to number the same.

¶41

A counter affidavit has been filed by the panchayat contending mainly that the petitioner having not challenged Ext.R2(a) order declining number to the building constructed by him, he is not entitled to seek direction to the Panchayat to number the building. It was also contended by the Panchayat in the counter affidavit that since the petitioner has already applied for regularization of the building in terms of the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularization of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2014 conceding that the building is unauthorised, he cannot be heard to contend that the building is an authorised one and seek orders for

¶42

W.P.(C) No.14630 of 2019

¶43

..8..

¶44

numbering the same. It was further contended that insofar as the direction issued by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions to number the building of the petitioner has been interfered with by this Court in W.P.(C) No.24199 of 2017 and insofar as the said judgment has become final, the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief granted by the Ombudsman in this proceedings.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the Panchayat.

¶46

It is seen that Exts.P1 and P2 No-objection Certificates have been issued by the panchayat to the petitioner and to his brother during 2005. There is no dispute to the fact that the building rules we re not implemented during 2005 in the panchayat and buildings were permitted to be constructed based on the Noobjection Certificate issued by the panchayat subject to the condition that the construction shall conform to the requirement of Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, viz, that there shall be a clear open yard of 3 meters betwee n the building line and the road boundary. It is also seen that the petitioner has constructed the

¶47

W.P.(C) No.14630 of 2019

¶48

..9..

¶49

building after leaving 3 meters open space between the line of the abutting road and the building line and thereupon preferred an application for assigning building number. It is evident from Ext.P4 communication that the petitioner preferred the application for assigning building number before 25.6.2009. There is no dispute to the fact that the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 was made applicable in the panchayat with effect from 6.6.2007. Though the panchayat has denied the averment of the petitioner in the writ petition that he has completed the structure of the building by March 2007, the panchayat has no case in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not commenced the construction of the building before 6.6.2007. In other words, it can be certainly inferred from the materials on record that the petitioner has commenced the construction of the building on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 Noobjection Certificates before 06.06.2007. As noted, though the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 application for regularisation of the construction when the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 came into force, he approached this Court later in W.P.(C) No.21748 of 2013 setting out a case that the panchayat cannot refuse building

¶50

W.P.(C) No.14630 of 2019

¶51

..10..

¶52

number to the building since the building has been constructed on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 No-objection Certificates. It is in the light of the aforesaid case, this Court directed disposal of the application for assignment of building number, instead of directing the competent authority to consider Ext.P5 application for regularisation. Ext.R2(a) order issued by the panchayat pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the said writ petition indicates that the request made by the petitioner for assignment of building number was declined, taking the stand that the building does not conform to the provisions of the building rules which was in force at the relevant time. Insofar as the panchayat has issued No-objection Certificates to the petitioner and to his brother for construction of the building at a point of time when the building rules were not in force in the Panchayat and insofar as the petitioner proceeded to construct the building on the strength of the No-objection Certificates before the building rules were made applicable in the Panchayat, according to me, the Panchayat is precluded from denying building number to the building on any ground whatsoever. I take this view also for the reason that the Panchayat has not

¶53

..11..

¶54

W.P.(C) No.14630 of 2019

¶55

interdicted the construction of the petitioner after the building rules have been made applicable in the Panchayat.

¶56

As noted, the main contention of the panchayat is that the relief sought by the petitioner in the writ petition in one granted to the petitioner by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions in Ext.P13 order and the said order having been interfered with by this Court in Ext.P14 judgment, the petitioner cannot seek the same relief again in a fresh writ petition. I do not find any substance in this contention. A perusal of Ext.P14 judgment indicates that Ext.P13 order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions has been interfered with by this Court solely on the ground that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint preferred by the petitioner and grant the relief sought by the petitioner. The question is whether interference with such an order of the Ombudsman by this Court precludes the petitioner from claiming the relief granted to him by the Ombudsman in a separate proceedings, if he is otherwise entitled for the same. According to me, interference with such an order passed by the Ombudsman by this Court on the ground that

¶57

W.P.(C) No.14630 of 2019

¶58

..12..

¶59

the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to pass such an order, does not preclude the petitioner from approaching this Court for the same relief, if he is otherwise entitled for the same in law. True, the position would have been different, had this Court held while interfering with the order of the Ombudsman that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the proceedings before the Ombudsman. Such a finding is absent in Ext.P14 judgment. That apart, when this court exercises its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, denying a relief to a person, who is found to be entitled for the same, on technical grounds, would go against the spirit of the said constitutional provision. In the circumstances, according to me, the contention aforesaid of the panchayat is unsustainable in law.

¶60

The next contention raised by the panchayat in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner having applied for regularization of the construction in accordance with the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularization of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2014, he is precluded from contending that the construction of the building is in order. First of all, the specific case of the

¶61

W.P.(C) No.14630 of 2019

¶62

..13..

¶63

petitioner is that he preferred the application for regularization on the advice made by the Secretary of the Panchayat. Further, though the petitioner preferred the application, there is nothing on record to indicate that he has pursued the same in any manner. Further, insofar as it is found that the Panchayat is bound to number the building, it will be too harsh and highly unfair to deny the petitioner a relief which he is entitled to, merely for the reason that he preferred an application for regularization of the construction on a wrong legal advice.

¶64

Another contention raised by the Panchayat is that the petitioner is not entitled to seek directions to the Panchayat to number the building since he has not challenged Ext.R2(a) order earlier passed by the Panchayat declining number to the building. This is purely a technical contention. True, the petitioner ought to have challenged Ext.R2(a) order in this writ petition. What is challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition in essence is the stand taken by the Panchayat in Ext.R2(a) order in declining number to the building. When the petitioner challenges in the writ petition the stand taken by the Panchayat in Ext.R2(a) order in declining

¶65

W.P.(C) No.14630 of 2019

¶66

..14..

¶67

number to the building and when this court finds that the said stand is unsustainable in law, a mere omission on the part of the petitioner in challenging Ext.R2(a) order, according to me, cannot stand in the way of this court granting the relief to the petitioner which he is entitled to.

¶68

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to assign number to the building constructed by the petitioner referred to in the writ petition, treating the same as one legitim ately constructed. This shall be done within two months.

¶69

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶70

ds 09.02.2021

¶71

W.P.(C) No.14630 of 2019

¶72

..15..

¶73

APPENDIX

¶74

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶75

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER'S BROTHER.

¶76

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 15.06.2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DATED 25.06.2009. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BY THE PETITIONER DATED 05.06.2011. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TO THE SECRETARY DATED 30.06.2011.

¶77

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ANOTHER LETTER BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DATED 17.04.2012.

¶78

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)NO.21748 OF 2013 DATED 25.02.2014. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASST.ENGINEER LSGD.

¶79

..16..

¶80

W.P.(C) No.14630 of 2019

¶81

EXHIBIT	P10 A TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER DAT SECRETARY OF T	THE LETTER TO THE ED 11.04.2014 BY THE HE GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT	P11 A TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER DAT	THE APPLICATION OF THE ED 14.11.2014.
EXHIBIT	P12 A TRUE COPY OF PLANNER TO THE 30.01.2015.	THE LETTER OF THE TOWN GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED
EXHIBIT	P13 A TRUE COPY OF 21.01.2017 BY O.P.NO.1901 OF	THE ORDER DATED THE OMBUDSMAN IN 2015.
EXHIBIT	P14 A TRUE COPY OF (C)NO.24199 OF	THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. 2017 DATED 27.11.2018.
EXHIBIT	P15 A TRUE COPY OF W.A.NO.2429 OF	THE JUDGMENT IN 2018 DATED 14.12.2018.
EXHIBIT	P16 A TRUE COPY OF 16.03.2019 BY GRAMA PANCHAYA	THE PROCEEDINGS DATED THE SECRETARY OF THE TH.
EXHIBIT	P17 A TRUE COPY OF OF 2019 IN W.A	THE ORDER IN R.P.NO.362 .NO.2429 OF 2018.
EXHIBIT	P17(A) A TRUE COPY OF NIRMAL ROLLING 27.09.2007 ISS INDUSTRIES TO	THE ORDER FORM FOR SHUTTER DATED UED BY ST.JUDGE THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT	P18 TRUE COPY OF T 06/07/2019 ISS RESPONDENT.	HE NOTICE DATED UED BY THE 2ND

¶82

W.P.(C) No.14630 of 2019

¶83

..17..

¶84

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶85

EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.M2129/11 DATED 16/4/2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶86

EXHIBIT R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19/12/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE NOTICE, IN COMPLAINT NO.1901/2015 BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS

¶87

EXHIBIT R2(C)

¶88

TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 19/11/2016 IN COMPLAINT NO.1901/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS

John.M.Sebastian, v. Marangattupilly Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John.M.Sebastian, v. Marangattupilly Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayan M. Vs the District Collector

Meera@Ayisha Devi.T Vs State of Kerala

Kuttasseri Muhammed Kunhi Vs the Wandoor Grama Panchayath

Shajahan Vs the Secretary, Vazhikadavu Grama Panchayath

Ramesh Kumar.J Vs State of Kerala

Sathiamma Vs State of Kerala