SIVAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners put up a residential building within the local limits of Vadakara Municipality after obtaining Ext.Pl building permit dated 12.5.2006. The permit was valid up to 11.5.2009. The construction of the building was completed before that date. After the building was completed, the Petitioners submitted a completion plan before the Secretary of Vadakara Municipality for the issuance of a completion certificate. At that stage, the Secretary of Vadakara Municipality issued Ext.P2 memo dated 29.1.2010 calling upon the Petitioners to submit a revised plan for regularising the additional constructions made by them. The Petitioners thereupon submitted a revised plan accompanied by Ext.P3 letter dated 22.2.2010. The Secretary of Vadakara Municipality thereupon issued Ext.P4 memo dated 22.3.2010 calling upon the Petitioners to remit the sum of Rs. 8,480/- for considering the application for regularisation. The Petitioners thereupon submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 20.4.2010 objecting to the demand made in Ext.P4 memo. They contended that as per Rule 145 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, the compounding fee payable is only twice the amount of the permit fee and that in the case of deviation or additional constructions, only the area so deviated or added shall be considered for collection of the compounding fee. In this Writ Petition the Petitioners challenge Ext.P4 and seek a direction to Respondents 2 and 3 not to collect compounding fee in excess of the prescribed limits.

(2.) A counter affidavit dated 9.8.2010 has been filed on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3 justifying the levy of fee at the rate stipulated in Ext.P4. It is contended that as the application for regularisation was submitted only oh 1.6.2009, after the validity of Ext.Pl permit expired, twice the amount of the permit fee for the entire building which has an area of 274.16 Sq.metres (rounded off to 275 Sq.metres) was demanded as the compounding fee. Respondents 2 and 3 have in the counter affidavit attempted to justify the levy of compounding fee at the rate claimed in Ext.P4, on that ground.

(3.) I heard Smt. Nikhila Soman, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Smt. K.R. Deepa, learned Government Pleader appearing for the first Respondent and Sri. V. Vijay Mohan, learned standing counsel appearing for Respondents 2 and 3.I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. As per Ext.Pl permit, the total plinth area of the proposed building is 265.66 Sq.metres. Ext.Pl building permit was valid up to 11.5.2009. It is not in dispute that a building was put up on the strength of Ext.Pl permit within that period and thereafter an application was submitted on 1.6.2009 for an occupancy certificate. Along with the application, Petitioners had submitted a revised plan as per which the area of the completed building was 274.16 sq.metres. The difference in the plinth area as per the said plan was approximately 10 sq.metres. The short question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether for regularising the said deviation, which deviation according to the Respondents can be regularised under Rule 143 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, the compounding fee payable is twice the amount of the permit fee payable in respect of the entire building or in respect of the additional construction namely, 10 Sq.metres.