KRISHNAN MAHADEVAN Vs. MONIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is against Ext. P1 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Trivandrum. A building permit granted to petitioner by the second respondent Panchayat was cancelled by the Tribunal directing the Secretary of that respondent to examine whether the building put up by petitioner on the permit issued was in conformity with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and Kerala Municipality Building Rules. If the construction was found to be not in compliance with the provisions of the above two Acts that respondent was directed to examine whether regularisation was possible as per the Rules. Petitioner has also been directed not to carry on with any construction or occupy the already constructed area till a final decision is taken by the Panchayath. Ext. P4 building permit was granted to petitioner by 2nd respondent to put up a construction in his plot having an extent of 1.14 acres. Validity of Ext. P4 was challenged by first respondent before the Panchayath and, later, before the Tribunal contending that the permit issued for construction was in violation of the Building Rules. Petitioner has another property abutting the plot in which the proposed construction is put up under Ext. P4 permit, was the case of 1st respondent to contend that Ext. P4 permit issued extending the exemption covered by Chapter VIII of the Building Rules as if the petitioner is a small plot holder having less than 3 cents is unsustainable. Challenge canvassed by the 1st respondent found approval with the Tribunal, which allowing his appeal passed Ext. P1 order with directions as indicated earlier.

(2.) I heard the senior counsel appearing for petitioner, and also the respective counsel appearing for 1st and 2nd respondents. Interpretation placed by the Tribunal over S. 60 of the Building Rules is erroneous, is the submission of the learned senior counsel for petitioner. Proviso to S. 60, according to the counsel, makes it abundantly clear that where permit is applied for constructing different buildings, then alone, it will disentitle a person from getting the benefit conferred under that Rule. I do not find any merit in the above submission. S. 60 of the Building Rules reads thus: