Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Heard Sri. K. Ramakumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B. Harish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Corporation. The factual dispute regarding the alignment of the common boundary, which is pending adjudication in civil court, and the dispute regarding actual clearance available cannot be adjudicated and resolved by this Court. But the main thrust of argument of the learned senior counsel is regarding the irregularity and impropriety in Ext.P3 order, to the extent it arrived at a finding to the effect that there is required clearance on all sides of the 3rd respondent's building, and the construction does not in any way infringe the provisions of the Building Rules, and the same can be regularised. Such a decision, according to the petitioner, is highly premature. The question whether a construction made in deviation from the approved plan can be regularised or not and whether such deviated construction will  infringe the provisions of the Building Rules, are matters to be considered and adjudicated on the basis of the application for regularisation to be submitted along with fresh plan containing the altered constructions effected. It is not a matter which can be decided in a proceedings initiated under Section 406, even before receipt of an application for regularisation, is the contention.

6. Section 406 of the Act contemplates procedure for demolition or alteration of building unlawfully commenced, carried on, or completed, in violation of an approved plan. The said provision contemplate issuance of a provisional order requiring the owner to demolish the work unlawfully executed or made in violation of the approved plan or to bring such work in conformity with the plan and specifications on which the permission is granted, or to show cause against confirming such provisional order. After hearing objections, the Secretary of the Corporation is empowered either to confirm the order or to modify the same to such extent he may think fit. Therefore the normal procedure in a proceedings under Section 406 of the Act, should culminate in a finding as to whether there is unauthorised or deviated construction and as to whether it is to be demolished, removed or altered. But the proviso to Section 406(1)(iii) give discretion to the Secretary for regularising such  construction on realisation of the prescribed compounding fee, if such construction is not in contravention of the provisions of the Building Rules. Chapter XX of the Building Rules deals with Regularisation of unpermitted constructions and deviations. Rule 143 of the Building Rules deals with the powers of the Secretary to regularise certain constructions. The procedure to be adopted for the purpose of considering regularisation is enumerated in Rule 144. Rule 145 deals with the Application fee to be collected. Rule 146 prescribe detailed procedure to be adopted when a decision is taken either to grant or to refuse regularisation. It provides about determination of compounding fee to be collected, its rates, method of collection etc. Intimation to be given in a case of refusal is also contemplated therein. Again Rule 147 of the said Rules enumerate steps to be followed for demolition of buildings which are not regularised.

7. From a scanning of the above quoted provisions it is evident that a comprehensive scheme is provided to deal with applications for regularising unauthorised or deviated constructions. Therefore the question mooted for consideration is as to whether a decision permitting regularisation can be taken by the Secretary, without complying with the procedure contemplated in Chapter XX of the Building Rules, straight away in proceedings initiated under Section 406 for demolition of an  unlawfully completed construction. Whether it is proper to drop any proceedings initiated under Section 406, merely on the finding that the unauthorised or deviated construction can be regularised. Basically, the right to approach the Secretary for regularisation is an option provided under the statute to the owner of the building which is constructed unauthorisedly or deviated from the approved plan. Only when the person, against whom an action under S.406(1) is initiated, approaches the Secretary with an application as contemplated under the proviso to Section 406(1)(iii) complying with all the procedure contemplated in Chapter XX of the Building Rules, the Secretary need to examine the scope for granting regularisation. Then only the Secretary can take an appropriate decision based on the particulars furnished in the application for regularisation and revised plan submitted therewith, as to whether regularisation can be granted or refused. While considering a question as to whether a provisional order issued for demolition of the unauthorised construction need be confirmed or not, the Secretary is not expected to arrive at any conclusion regarding regularisation, without there being any such request submitted in accordance with the Building Rules. Any decision with respect to grant of regularisation if taken without compliance of the procedure in Rule 143 to 147 contained in Chapter XX of the  Building Rules cannot be sustained as proper and regular.

8. Under the above mentioned position of law Ext.P3, to the extent it held that the construction made in deviation of the approved plan is liable to be regularised, cannot be sustained. Since the appellate authority had not looked into the matter in the above perspective, Ext.P4 also requires reversal. Hence the findings in Ext.P3 to the above extent, which is confirmed in Ext.P4, is hereby set aside. But the 1st respondent is restrained from taking any further steps against the 3rd respondent based on the findings regarding the unauthorised construction made in deviation from the approved plan, provided the 3rd respondent submits proper application for regularisation accompanied with plan and drawings along with remittance of required fee, as provided under Rule 143 to 145 of the Kerala Muncipality Building Rules, 1999, within a period of one month from today. If such an application is received, the Secretary of the 1st respondent Corporation shall consider and dispose of the same on its merits, following the procedure contemplated in Rule 143 to 147 of the Building Rules, untramelled by any observations in Ext.P3 or P4 orders. Since the petitioner herein was pursuing her complaint in the matter, she should be afforded with an effective opportunity of personal hearing before any decision is taken in this regard. The decision in this regard will be taken by  the Secretary as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such application. It is made clear that, considering the pendency of the civil dispute regarding alignment of the common boundary wall of the parties, the decision if any taken by the Secretary as above will be subject to the final outcome of the civil suit and either parties are at liberty to work out their remedies against such decision based on the final outcome of the civil suit.