Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 647 (KER)

R. Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala

2026-06-03

P V Kunhikrishnan

body2026
JUDGMENT : P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. 1. These Writ Petitions are connected, and therefore, I am disposing of these Writ Petitions by a common judgment. 2. The counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that W.P.(C) No. 8822 of 2010 can be treated as the main case. The petitioners have submitted an argument note also. 3. The short facts in W.P.(C) No.8822 of 2010 are as follows: The petitioner purchased 28.125 cents of land in Muttambalam village in Kottayam District. It is submitted that a small drain, 1.2 m wide, passes through the property. As evident from Ext.P1 dated 29.12.1986, the petitioner submitted a building permit application for the construction of a commercial building complex. The same was allowed on condition that the drain should be maintained and repaired at the petitioner’s expense. It is submitted that in 1993, a resurvey was conducted in Kottayam, and the place earmarked for the drain was allotted a separate survey number. Subsequently, pursuant to Ext.P3 dated 14.12.1993, issued by the District Collector, corrections were made in the survey sketch, cancelling the allotment of survey number to the drain, and accordingly, the same forms part of the petitioner’s survey number, is the submission. A suit was filed by the predecessor in interest of the 5 th respondent as O.S. No.412/2000 against the petitioner, and the same was dismissed as evident by Ext.P4 decree, is the submission. Ext.P5 is the building permit issued in favour of the petitioner and the CSI Church to build the commercial building complex. It is submitted that the permit was issued in accordance with Rule 85 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules . It is also submitted that a 5.2-meter ramp was built over the drain for its protection and maintenance. It is further submitted that, as per Ext.P11 minutes of the Rule 85 Committee, the building plan and permit were accepted. Thereafter, Ext.P7 show-cause notice was issued on the basis of the complaint received from respondents 4 and 5, is the submission. W.P.(C) No. 27621 of 2009 was filed by Respondent No. 5, and the same was disposed of with a direction to the Secretary of the Municipality to hear both sides on the show cause notice. Thereafter, the parties were heard, and it was decided to request the Taluk Surveyor to identify the boundaries of the property, is the submission. W.P.(C) No. 27621 of 2009 was filed by Respondent No. 5, and the same was disposed of with a direction to the Secretary of the Municipality to hear both sides on the show cause notice. Thereafter, the parties were heard, and it was decided to request the Taluk Surveyor to identify the boundaries of the property, is the submission. The survey was physically objected by respondents 4 and 5, is the further submission. It is further submitted that, as per Exts. P9 and P9(a), this Court directed the authorities to survey and identify the boundary and to conclude the proceedings. Thereafter, the Ext.P10 order was issued by the 3 rd respondent, withdrawing the stop memo after finding that there is no violation. It is further submitted that the 5 th respondent invoke the powers under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code , and the same was dismissed as per Ext.P16. Thereafter, Ext.P12 order was issued on 28.01.2010 to recommence the construction, subject to Rule 85 Committee proceedings, is the submission. Respondents 4 to 9 challenged Exts.P10 and P12 in Appeal Nos. 33 of 2010 and 109 of 2010, respectively, before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, as evident by Exts.P13 and P13(a). The appeals were allowed by Ext.P15 common order directing the Secretary of the Municipality to conduct a proper local inspection, verify whether the alleged drain is a public drainage vested in the corporation, prepare a detailed report, and initiate proper proceedings if any. Ext. P15 is challenged before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 8822 of 2010. 4. W.P.(C) No. 14625 of 2010 is filed by respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.(C) No. 8822 of 2010 for a direction not to give an occupancy certificate to the petitioner, alleging that there is illegal construction. Thereafter, the Municipality issued Ext.P18 stop memo pursuant to Ext.P15. It is submitted that in W.P.(C) No.6187 of 2011, this Court passed an order permitting the payment of building tax regularly, and not with a two-time penalty stating that it is an illegal structure. It is also submitted that the suit filed by respondents 5 to 9 seeking a declaration of title and the fixation of boundary was dismissed by the Civil Court as not pressed. It is also submitted that the suit filed by respondents 5 to 9 seeking a declaration of title and the fixation of boundary was dismissed by the Civil Court as not pressed. In these situations, W.P.(C) No.8822 of 2010 is filed with the following prayers: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P15. ii) Issue such other appropriate writ order or direction that may be deemed to be just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [SIC] 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality. 6. These Writ Petitions were heard in detail by this Court on an earlier occasion, and a detailed interim order was passed after adverting to the contentions of the parties on 19.11.2024. The prayers in all these writ petitions were also adverted by this court in the interim order. It will be better to extract the common order passed by this Court on 19.11.2024: “Heard in part. The dispute in the present case is regarding a multistoried building constructed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8822 of 2010. The permit granted for the construction was under challenge before the Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions. The Tribunal had passed an order dated 06.03.2010, Ext P15, which is impugned in W.P.(C) No.8822 of 2010. All the subsequent writ petitions are either about the grant of trade licences or regarding the electricity and water connections. The entire issue stems from the allegations/rival claims over a drainage which the petitioner asserts to be a part of his property. The contesting respondent opposes the said claim. 2. Be that as it may, the fact remains that from 2010 till date the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8822 of 2010 has been carrying on activities in the building which is the subject matter of these writ petitions without the same being regularised or numbered. There is also a demand for the property tax payable for the building. The fact that the petitioner was granted a permit cannot be disputed by the Municipality. The Municipality also conceded the permission granted by the special committee on the petitioner surrendering land for road widening. 3. Under such circumstances, to put a quietus to the dispute in these writ petitions, the following directions are issued as an interim measure. 1. The fact that the petitioner was granted a permit cannot be disputed by the Municipality. The Municipality also conceded the permission granted by the special committee on the petitioner surrendering land for road widening. 3. Under such circumstances, to put a quietus to the dispute in these writ petitions, the following directions are issued as an interim measure. 1. The Secretary of the Municipality is directed to inspect the building in question with prior notice to all the parties in these writ petitions to find out whether the construction has been in tune with the permit and the permission of the special committee, granted to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8822 of 2010. 2. If any variations are found, it will be open to the Municipality to take such steps warranted in law and issue appropriate notice to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8822 of 2010, who may respond to the same by curing the defects, if any or seeking regularisation. 3. The powers under Section 242 of the Kerala Municipality Act can also be invoked by the Municipality for computing the property tax in case it finds that the building is unauthorised. 4. The above steps shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Municipality shall place a copy of the order so passed before this Court. 5. The status quo as of today shall be maintained by the parties till the next posting. 6. The interim orders passed in all these cases will stand modified to the above extent. Post on 18.12.2024.” 7. Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8822 of 2010 submitted that all the defects are cured and the occupancy certificate is to be given by the Municipality in the light of the inspection. 8. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality submitted that, if the defects are cured, there is no hurdle in issuing the occupancy certificate. 9. If that be the case, these Writ Petitions need not be retained here. The interim order dated 19.11.2024 can be retained. If all the defects regarding the construction of the building are cured after the inspection conducted as ordered by this Court on 19.11.2024, the Municipality will give occupancy certificate to the building of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8822 of 2010, if an application is filed for the same. The interim order dated 19.11.2024 can be retained. If all the defects regarding the construction of the building are cured after the inspection conducted as ordered by this Court on 19.11.2024, the Municipality will give occupancy certificate to the building of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8822 of 2010, if an application is filed for the same. Therefore, these Writ Petitions are disposed of in the following manner: 1. The interim order dated 19.11.2024 is retained. 2. If all the defects regarding the construction of the building are cured by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8822 of 2010 after the inspection conducted as ordered by this Court on 19.11.2024, the petitioner will submit an application, and if the same is received and the defects are cured, the Municipality will issue occupancy certificate, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the application. 3. As far as the payment of tax is concerned, the same is left open because a connected case is pending before this Court.