MARANGATTUPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Grama Panchayat, challenging Ext.P10 order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions dated 21.01.2017, directing the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to assign building numbers to the 4th respondent, and for further related and consequential reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) The 4th respondent along with another constructed a three storied commercial building abutting State Highway No.1 at Monippally Junction within the limits of the petitioner Grama Panchayat, and thereafter made an application before the Secretary of the Panchayat for regularizing the unauthorized construction and for assignment of building number. Thereafter, 4th respondent and his brother approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.21748 of 2013, seeking directions to the Panchayat for expeditious disposal of their application for assignment of building number, which was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment, directing the 6th respondent therein to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application submitted by the petitioners within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Accordingly, Ext.P2 order dated 16.04.2014 was issued, dismissing the application for regularization and for assigning building number. Ext.P2 order has become final, since no appeal was preferred against the same.

(3.) Later on, the 1st respondent introduced the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularization of Unauthorized Construction) Rules, 2014 for regularization of unauthorized constructions made before 31.03.2013. Accordingly, the 4th respondent along with the co-owner moved an application for regularization in accordance with the said Rules. In contemplation of Rule 5(2) of the Rules, 2014, the application and plans were forwarded by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent, along with a letter dated 26.12.2014. However, it was returned as per Ext.P3 with a direction to re-submit the application and plans after rectification of the mistakes enumerated therein. A copy of which was marked to the 4th respondent also. Since Exts.P3 and P4 did not evoke any response from the 4th respondent, petitioner issued Ext.P5 reminder to the 4th respondent, requiring him to submit the rectified application and plan before 25.06.2015 in order to re-submit the same before the 2nd respondent. However, 4th respondent did not re-submit the application for regularization. It is also pointed out that, if the 4 th respondent was aggrieved by any decision taken by the petitioner, 4th respondent was left with a remedy to provide appeal against the decision of the 2nd respondent. Instead, the 4th respondent preferred a complaint dated 19.12.2015 before the 3rd respondent as O.P.No.1901 of 2015, to take action for allotting building number, evident from Ext.P6.