SABITHA BEEVI Vs. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the decision of the writ court, which after considering the pleadings and submissions of the parties therein and taking note of Sub-section 6 of Section 509 and Section 510 of the Kerala Municipality Act and Rule 8(3) of the Tribunal for the Kerala Local Self Government Institution Rules, 1999, and also of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ganesan v. Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board [2019(2) KLT 925 (SC)], read along with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act dismissed the writ petition, filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 therein to declare that the appellant acquired, a deemed regularization of the construction already made and a deemed permit for the remaining construction as per Section 392(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and Rule 15(2) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 and also declined to compel the respondents 1 and 2 to allow the appellant to complete the work without any interference on the basis of the deemed permit. Short facts leading to the writ appeal are as here under:

(2.) The petitioner before the learned single Judge in writ petition numbered as W.P.(C).31610/2019 is the appellant. The petitioner/appellant filed the said writ petition inter aliea seeking issuance of writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P7; for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare that the petitioner acquired deemed regularization and deemed permit under the Kerala Municipality Act and the Rules there under; and for issuance of the writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete the construction of the roof. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that ExtP7 is an appealable order and that the petitioner having lost the right to file the appeal for bar of limitation, the writ petition is not entertainable. The petitioner/appellant is aggrieved by the said judgment.

(3.) The appellant, earlier faced a complaint initiated by one Chandrika Kumari alleging that the 3rd floor of the building owned by the appellant was an illegal construction and that the conversion of roof from a temporary tinned one to a concrete slab structure was also illegal. At the time when such a complaint was lodged by Chandrika Kumari, the appellant had partly converted the tinned roof to a concrete one. The respondents acting on the complaint issued stop memo. Thus the appellant's work of conversion of roof was stopped. However, Chandrika Kumari alleging that the appellant continued with the work approached this Hon'ble Court by preferring writ petition numbered as W.P.(c) 32394/2016. The appellant was arrayed as respondent No.4 in the said writ petition. This Hon'ble Court upon hearing the parties passed judgment dated 07-12-2016. The said judgment is Ext.P1.