DR FRANCIS PUTHANANGADI Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (A) DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of a building constructed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27835 of 2015, and the consequential action initiated by the 3rd respondent Panchayat, which is the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.11975 of 2016. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver a common judgment. Facts discernible from W.P.(C) No.27835 of 2015 are taken into account for the disposal of the writ petitions.

(2.) According to the petitioner, petitioner purchased 41 cents of land along with a residential house within the limits of the 3rd respondent Panchayat, evident from Ext.P1 sale deed dated 01.12006. In Ext.P1, it is stated that, there is a residential house situate therein with electric connection at the time when the transferor purchased the property. It is also the case of the petitioner that, the residential building was in existence since 1972, and it has been numbered as VII/376. The western boundary of the property purchased by the petitioner is a sea wall constructed by the Panchayat and on the western side of the sea wall lies a part of Arabian Sea from the property of the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the proceedings issued by the K.S.E.B when the connection was transferred from the previous owner in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner intended to construct a residential house in the property. According to the petitioner, the Arabian Sea is at a distance of 50 metres from the property purchased by the petitioner. It is also evident from Exts.P1 and P2 that there was already a residential house in the property purchased by the petitioner. As per the guidelines issued by the 1st respondent, there is no prohibition in re-construction being made in the same area of the old building without increasing the existing plinth area. Ext.P3 is a communication issued by the Chairman of the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority addressed to the Secretary, Orumanayoor Grama Panchayat, Thrissur District, also stating that if the construction is made in the location of the old building without increasing the existing plinth area, existing FSI and density, the reconstruction can be regularized in CRZ area.

(3.) Matters being so, petitioner submitted a building permit for construction of a residential house. However, the petitioner was informed by the 4th respondent that there is no requirement for building permit from the Panchayat authorities and since the proposed building is within the prohibited distance of CRZ, the no objection/consent of the 2nd respondent is required for the petitioner to proceed with the construction of his house. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted an application through the 4th respondent before the 2nd respondent, requesting for grant of permission to construct the residential house specifically undertaking that the proposed construction would be within the area of the earlier residential structure. The application submitted by the petitioner was forwarded by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent. Since there was no action taken by the 2nd respondent on the application filed by the petitioner, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.21621 of 2011. The said writ petition was disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner, evident from Ext.P4 judgment.