The petitioner who is the owner of a small plot of land had applied for the issue of a building permit for the construction of a commercial building from the first respondent. The said application was rejected finding that there was violation of Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (referred to as the 'Act' for short). The petitioner had challenged the said order before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram in Appeal No: 227/2008. By Ext.P5 order dated 6.9.2008 the petitioner's appeal was allowed by the Tribunal directing the Panchayat to consider the matter afresh, subject to the directions contained therein. Thereafter, the matter was reconsidered and by Ext.P7, the petitioner's application was rejected. However, in Ext.P7 the rejection was on a totally different ground. The counsel for the petitioner has a contention that he had not been put on notice regarding the additional grounds that are relied upon for the purpose of supporting the application for rejection in Ext.P7. 2. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged Ext.P7 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram by filing Ext.P9 appeal. As per Ext.P11 order, the Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner's appeal.
3. According to Mr.B.Krishnan who appears for the petitioner, the petitioner had surrendered an extent of his property to the Government and obtained an additional extent of land in exchange, as per Ext.P14 Govt. Order dated 16.7.2007. Had he been put on notice of the fact that the extent of his land would be the subject matter of consideration of the Panchayat in Ext.P7, he could have produced Ext.P14 before the Panchayat and convinced the said authority that he was in possession of the required extent of land. However, he was denied the said opportunity. It is further pointed out that the reconsideration ordered by Ext.P5 order was confined to the directions contained therein. However, Ext.P7 while considering the matter that was directed to be considered has taken into consideration other aspects also, with respect to which, the petitioner had not been given any notice at all. The above crucial aspect has not been considered in Ext.P11 order of the Tribunal also. Therefore, it is contended that Ext.P7 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
4. C.M.Mohammed Iqubal appears for the Panchayat. The Govt. Pleader appears for the third respondent.
5. Heard. A Perusal of Ext.P5 shows that, the reconsideration ordered therein was on the basis of the following:-
“In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order bearing No: B1-1157/07 dated 18.4.2008 of the Secretary, Purathur Grama Panchayat is set aside. The respondent is directed to pass fresh proper considered order on the application for building permit within one month from today after proper verification whether there was proper notification as per Rule 3 of the Panchayat Raj (Manner of Publication of Notification or Notice) Rules 1996 regarding the northern road so as to make it a notified road for the purpose of Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.”
Therefore, the crucial issue that had to be considered by the Panchayat was whether the northern road had been notified in accordance with Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Manner of Publication of Notification or Notice) Rules, 1996 and whether the road was one that was so notified under Section 220(b) of the Act. Ext.P7 does not show that the above aspect of which the reconsideration was ordered has engaged the attention of the first respondent. In fact, the above aspect has not even been referred to in Ext.P7. Ext.P11 order of the Tribunal also does not refer to the above aspect or consider the same.
According to the petitioner, he was under the impression that, the reconsideration undertaken by the first respondent would be confined to the limits of the directions contained in Ext.P5. It was for the said reason that he had not produced any additional documents including Ext.P14 for consideration of the first respondent before Ext.P7 was passed. In view of the fact that, neither Ext.P7 nor Ext.P11 has referred to the above aspect, the petitioner is justified in putting forward the said contention. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram considers the matter afresh and decides whether Ext.P7 is sustainable or not. Inasmuch as the petitioner had no opportunity to produce Ext.P14 before the first respondent he shall be at liberty to produce Ext.P14 before the Tribunal.
In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P11 is set aside. The Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to take up Appeal No: 550/2008, to consider the same in accordance with law and to pass final orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall be at liberty to produce Ext.P14 in the appeal, within a period of two weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
jj /True copy/ Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge