SAJITH KUMAR G Vs. NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOURTH respondent had one cent of land in Sy.No.14 of Neyyattinkara Village. Out of that, he surrendered .21 sq.links of land free of cost for road widening. In the balance 0.79 sq. links of land, he wanted to construct a shop building. For that purpose, he applied for a building permit and was issued Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is the approved plan. Against Ext.P1, petitioner filed an appeal to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, a copy of which is Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the written statement filed by the first respondent Municipality, justifying the permit. Appeal was rejected by Ext.P5 order. It is challenging Ext.P5, the writ petition is filed.

(2.) THE contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is one of violation of Rule 82(1) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules (in short 'the Rules'). According to the counsel, as against the minimum required set back of 1.5 meters in the front portion of the building, set back left is only one meter. It is stated that the Tribunal by a wrong reasoning, held that from the set back as provided in Rule 62, the width of the property surrendered by the fourth respondent should be deducted and if so, the set back now available is in compliance with the provisions of the Rules.

(3.) IRRESPECTIVE of this finding, I am not in a position to issue any consequential direction sought for by the petitioner for the reason that the structure of the building has already been completed even before the filing of the writ petition. That apart, photographs produced by the parties show that the neighbouring buildings are also constructed in more or less the same alignment. Further it is also disclosed that though a portion of the land was surrendered by the fourth respondent for road development, that project also has not been implemented so far. In other words, if the fourth respondent had not surrendered the plot, he would have had sufficient land for the set back as provided in Rule 62. In such circumstances, if consequential directions are issued, all that is going to be achieved is the demolition of the structure already constructed and to ruin the petitioner. I do not intend to create such a situation. Therefore, while I do not approve the reasoning in Ext.P5 order, I dispose of this writ petition without issuing any consequential directions.