SUKU Vs. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2264/2020 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.1.2020, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition affirming the order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, by which the complaint raised by the petitioner in regard to the building permit secured by the 3 rd respondent in the appeal was declined holding that it was secured in accordance with law. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows;

(2.) Appellant is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 6 cents of landed property situated in Sy.No.473/3C of Punalur Village. The 3 rd respondent owns a property abutting the western side of the property of the appellant admeasuring 1 Are and 61 Sq.mts together with an old building, purchased in the year 2018. Later 3rd respondent demolished the old building for constructing a commercial building having Cellar, and ground + two floors, and accordingly he applied for building permit, which was granted by the 2 nd respondent- Secretary of the Municipality, for construction of a building having a total plinth area of 273.4 Sq.mts., which according to the appellant, was granted without conducting appropriate inspection. Therefore, it was contended by the appellant that the proposed construction endangers the existing building of the appellant and accordingly he preferred a petition under rule 11A of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (hereinafter called, "the Rules 1999") , which is a provision dealing with securing a development permit if earth cutting is required exceeding 1.5 metres .

(3.) The grievance highlighted by the appellant was that in spite of the complaint, no technical expert committee was constituted by the Punalur Municipality, which is a requirement of rule 11A. It was thereupon that the appellant approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions to ventilate his grievances. The Tribunal, however, did not entertain the appeal preferred by the appellant but disposed of the appeal with a direction to the Municipality to ensure appropriate inspection, if and when the construction is started by the 3 rd respondent, with further directions to the 3rd respondent to ensure safety measures in contemplation of Rule 20 of the rules 1999. Therefore, contending that the Tribunal has not appreciated the point of law raised by the appellant, the writ petition was filed.