Kerala High Court
Lissy Mathew vs Municipal Secretary on 20 February, 2019
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1940
WP(C).No.12433 of 2016
PETITIONER:
LISSY MATHEW
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O.P.M.MATHEW, PALATHARA HOUSE,
VAZHAPALLY.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
SRI.T.A.JOY
RESPONDENTS:
1 MUNICIPAL SECRETARY,
CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY
CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
2 CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY
CHANGANACHERRY,
KOTTAYAM,REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.12433 of 2016
2
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~ The writ petitioner seeks to direct respondents 1 and 2 to take up the issue of regularisation of the building construction made by the petitioner and to keep in abeyance Ext.P11 notice till a decision is taken in that regard.
2. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the property and building No.XXXII/308 and 308(1) of the 2 nd respondent-Municipality. According to the petitioner, the property tax in respect of the building was accepted for the years 2013 and 2014, as evidenced by Ext.P2. The petitioner is using the building and its shed from the year 2009 and electricity and water charges are also being paid by the petitioner.
3. According to the petitioner, there is no violation of any building rules in respect of the construction of the building or the alleged shed, which cannot be regularised. WP(C).No.12433 of 2016 3 The petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 application to respondents 1 and 2 seeking regularisation of the construction in question. The receipt of Ext.P8 application for regularisation is evidenced by Ext.P9. In the circumstances, the respondents are liable to be compelled to consider Ext.P8 application, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Going through the pleadings, I find that no counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition. The limited prayer of the petitioner is to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P8 application for regularisation. It is evident from Ext.P2 that respondents 1 and 2 have already assigned building number to the construction in question. In the circumstances, this writ petition can be allowed giving appropriate directions.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P8 application for regularisation of building construction submitted by the WP(C).No.12433 of 2016 4 petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If respondents 1 and 2 feel that the regularisation can be considered only by the Government of Kerala, the said respondents shall take necessary steps to forward the application to the Government of Kerala.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/20.02.2019 WP(C).No.12433 of 2016 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 5.2.14 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
P2 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17.12.13 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
P3 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL OF KSEB DATED 31.3.14.
P4 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE WATER BILL OF KERALA WATER AUTHORITY DATED 6.3.14.
P5 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 6.11.09 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
P6 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.3.14 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
P7 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION AND OBJECTIONS DATED 17.5.14 OF SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P8 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGULARIZATION. P9 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17.5.14 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
P10 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 4.6.14 IN WPC 14131/14.
P11 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30.1.16.