MATHEW JOSE OOKKAN Vs. MARTIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved with the order of the Tribunal at Ext.P9. The petitioner had commenced re-construction on the existing building in the property, when the petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 order. The petitioner hence filed an application for regularisation. Ext.P1 was issued on the complaint of the respondents 1 and 2 which is evident by Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is a communication issued by the Corporation to the 1st respondent pointing out that the petitioner has filed application for regularisation, on the notice issued to stop the re-construction without a valid permit.

(2.) The petitioner then applied for re-construction with consent obtained from his co-owners as evident from Exts.P3 and P4. The Corporation granted the building permit as is seen from Ext.P5. Ext.P5 permitted roof change without any sunshade projections and also re-construction of the walls of the existing building. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit in which initially an injunction was granted and then the same vacated by Ext.P6 order. The respondents 1 and 2 also approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, which was successful as is seen from Ext.P9.

(3.) By Ext.P9, the Tribunal found that there is violation of sub-rule (5) of Rule 100 of Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. Sub rule (5) of Rule 100, according to the Tribunal indicated that any alteration or addition could be carried out only if the existing building and the proposed floor has an average 60cm open space from the boundaries of all the plots on its sides. There was also a proviso which permitted reduction of such space on a consent being issued by the neighbouring property owners, subject only to the condition that not more than two sides could be permitted such extension, on a consent. The Tribunal found that the open space for the building from the eastern boundary of the plot, was only 30 to 50 cms. The property of respondents 1 and 2 was on the eastern boundary. Without the consent from the said property owner there could have been no re- construction carried out was the finding of the Tribunal.