SATISH MURTHI Vs. THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since, the parties are common, pleadings are identical and the matters in issue are one and the same, these Writ Petitions are heard together and disposed of accordingly, though the reliefs sought for are different. The Writ Petition No. 7997 of 2014 will be treated as the leading case and the parties are referred to, as described in Writ Petition No. 7997 of 2014. This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging Ext. P12 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging Ext. P8 building permit granted to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent herein is the paternal uncle of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent had applied for a building permit, seeking permission for alteration, repair and maintenance of the building owned and possessed by him, which is known by name 'Josier House'. The petitioner submits that he is also a co -owner of the property, having an extent of 10 cents, wherein the old ancestral home is situating and Ext. P8 building permit was obtained, without the consent of the petitioner and other co -owners. According to the petitioner, the building is a heritage building and he was shocked, when he came to know about the demolition of the said ancestral building, situating in Kalppathi heritage village, without the permission of the competent Authority. Ext. P8 building permit was obtained, after demolition of the heritage building, without obtaining permission from the 'Art and Heritage Commission'.

(2.) Subsequently, the 2nd respondent has obtained permission from the Art and Heritage Commission, suppressing the material facts. The permission seems to have been issued on the basis of proceedings of the 3rd respondent, ignoring the guidelines of the Local Self Government Department. In short, the respondents 1 and 3 granted Ext. P8 building permit without adverting to the real facts and situation and without ascertaining the actual lie as well as the extent of the land. Even though the 2nd respondent has produced possession certificate showing 10/10 share over the property, in fact, he had sold away 3.7 cents of land, out of the said 10 cents, after obtaining Ext. P8 building permit. It is also averred that Ext. P8 permit was issued in violation of Rule 7(1) and Rule 155(2) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules (for short 'KMBR'). The petitioner has filed O.S. No. 546/2013 before the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad, for mandatory injunction and permanent prohibitory injunction and in that suit, the Advocate Commissioner had filed a report, which would evidently show that the building permit was granted in violation of the KMBR. Besides, the Commission Report shows that the old heritage building was demolished completely before obtaining the permission from the Art and Heritage Commission. But, the respondents 1 and 3 granted sanction, without adverting to the real facts and situation. It is with these pleadings, this writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records pursuant to and in relation to Ext. P11 appeal and Ext. P12 order, examine the same and, if necessary, quash Ext. P12 order.

(3.) W.P.(C) No. 14455/2014 was filed by the brother of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7997/2014 and the averments in this writ petition are also same, as that of the other writ petition and the petitioner herein also prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari calling for Ext. P9 building permit issued by the 1st respondent and Ext. P10 permission issued by the 3rd respondent therein and quash Ext. P9 building permit.