JUDGMENT : S. Manikumar, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.30577 of 2016 dated 18.10.2019, by which the writ court set aside Exhibit-P10 order dated 27.05.2016 issued on behalf of the State of Kerala, represented by Secretary to the Government, Local Self Government Department, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.2 herein, regularising the unauthorised construction, after accepting a compound fee of Rs.45,475/-. Writ court further directed that report of the Secretary of Vilappil Grama Panchayat along with recommendations of the Chief Town Planner shall be considered afresh by the Government and the petitioner, 2nd respondent as well as 4th respondent therein shall be put on notice, heard and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after considering the contention of all the parties. They were also directed to appear before the Secretary to Government in the Local Self Government Department at 11 am on 30.10.2019 for hearing. 2. Being aggrieved, respondent No.4 therein has filed the instant writ appeal. 3. Before the writ court, respondent No.1 submitted that she is the owner and in possession of 4 cents of property in Vilappil village in Kattakada taluk at Thiruvananthapuram. Respondent No.4/appellant has 5.5 cents of property adjacent to the petitioner's property. Said land was purchased on 21.12.2009. Thereafter on 23.12.2009, another extent of 2.80 cents of property was purchased by the 4th respondent adjacent to the property purchased on 21.12.2009. Application for building permit for construction of three storeyed building in the 2.8 cents of property was submitted by the 4th respondent/appellant. Taking note of Rules 61 and 62 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2018 with regard to construction in small plots, Exhibit-P1 building permit was issued by the Secretary of Vilappil Grama Panchayat, respondent No.2 therein. 4. Being aggrieved, Smt. K.R. Moniamma, respondent No.1, challenged the building permit before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings and submissions, found that the benefit of proviso to Rule 60 would not be applicable in respect of buildings in small plots, if the applicant has another plot, abutting the proposed plot. 5. 4. Being aggrieved, Smt. K.R. Moniamma, respondent No.1, challenged the building permit before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings and submissions, found that the benefit of proviso to Rule 60 would not be applicable in respect of buildings in small plots, if the applicant has another plot, abutting the proposed plot. 5. The Tribunal found that 4th respondent's other property was abutting the property in respect of which, Exhibit-P1 building permit was applied for, and therefore, the plot in which construction was proposed, cannot be considered as a small plot. The Tribunal also found that the building permit was not legal and valid and accordingly, set aside the same. The Tribunal further directed the Secretary of Vilappil Grama Panchayat to conduct a site inspection to verify whether the building put up by 4th respondent/appellant is in conformity with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 and whether there is any possibility to regularise the construction, if an application is submitted by the 4th respondent. 6. Said order of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court by respondent No.4/appellant herein. Vide judgment in O.P.(C) No.2388 of 2011 dated 4.2.2013, this Court found that since the 4th respondent has a plot adjacent to the small plot with or without a building, he cannot be considered as a small plot holder and would not be entitled to the benefits of building permit in respect of the building in small plots and thus, the order of the Tribunal was upheld and the original petition was dismissed. 7. Thereafter, Exhibit-P8 application dated 28.03.2015 for regularization was submitted by the 4th respondent before the Panchayat. According to the writ petitioner, without hearing and behind her back, inspections were conducted and by Exhibit-P9 dated 30.11.2015, the Secretary of the Panchayat recommended regularization and forwarded proposal to the District Town Planner. Pursuant to the above, vide ExhibitP10 proceedings dated 27.5.2016, Government have passed orders directing regularization of unauthorized construction, after accepting a compounding fee of Rs.45,475/-. 8. Assailing the same, W.P.(C) No.30577 of 2016 has been filed. Before the writ court, contentions were made by the writ petitioner that constructions effected by the 4th respondent would not come within the definition of “unauthorised construction” as defined under Rule 2(j) of the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2014. 8. Assailing the same, W.P.(C) No.30577 of 2016 has been filed. Before the writ court, contentions were made by the writ petitioner that constructions effected by the 4th respondent would not come within the definition of “unauthorised construction” as defined under Rule 2(j) of the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2014. Writ petitioner has further contended that building permit having been set aside, there was no permission for the construction put up by the 4th respondent. He has relied on Rule 25(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 to contend that relaxation with regard to the set off from the nearest building is available to the 4th respondent/appellant. Contending that even if it is accepted, building has been constructed on the basis of Exhibit-P1 permit and that occupancy certificate has been issued prior to Exhibit-P2, action of the 2nd respondent regularising the construction without putting the writ petitioner on notice and without considering as to whether her grievance stood redressed, was completely unjustified. Contention has also been made that having taken up the matter before the Tribunal and obtained an order in her favour, writ petitioner /respondent No.1 is entitled to be heard. 9. Before the writ court, 4th respondent/appellant has contended that all the objections of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 to the building permit have been rectified and the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, has issued Exhibit-P2 order dated 14.03.2011 directing consideration of the application for regularisation. 4th respondent/appellant has further contended that the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2014 do not provide for issuance of any notice to the neighbouring land owner. 10. Secretary of Vilappil Grama Panchayat, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.2 therein, has contended that construction of the building has been completed and occupancy certificate has already been issued before Exhibit-P2 order was passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. Even in the said order, Exhibit-P2, direction has been issued to the Secretary to consider any application for regularisation to be submitted by the 4th respondent/ appellant. On being satisfied that substantial grievance of the petitioner stood redressed, recommendation has been issued for regularising the construction. Contentions were also made before the writ court that Government was empowered to regularise unauthorised construction carried out upto 31.03.2013 in Grama Panchayat areas. On being satisfied that substantial grievance of the petitioner stood redressed, recommendation has been issued for regularising the construction. Contentions were also made before the writ court that Government was empowered to regularise unauthorised construction carried out upto 31.03.2013 in Grama Panchayat areas. Chief Town Planner has made a recommendation on 03.05.2016 for regularisation of unauthorised construction by accepting the compound fee and on condition that the rainwater falling on the sun shade has to be disposed of in the same property. Thus, contentions were made by the Government that only after considering the recommendation of the Chief Town Planner, orders for regularising the construction have to be passed. 11. Adverting to the above rival contentions, at paragraph 5 in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.30577 of 2016 dated 18.10.2019, writ court ordered thus: “5. Having considered the contentions advanced, and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the opinion that even if the rules with regard to the regularization of unauthorized construction do not provide for notice and hearing to any objectors or neighbouring property owners, the facts of this case would have rendered it necessary that the issue of regularization of the unauthorized construction should have been taken up only with notice to the petitioner. This is in view of the fact that the petitioner has successfully challenged the building permit granted to the 4th respondent before the Tribunal. It is apparent from the Government Order and the recommendation forwarded by the Chief Town Planner that the Panchayat as well as the Chief Town Planner were aware of the complaints existing as against the construction. As a matter of fact, the 2nd condition in the Government Order is to the effect that complaints if any existing as against the construction should be redressed. The question whether such complaints are redressed could be answered only if the petitioner, who is the complainant, is put on notice as to the proposed regularization.” 12. Being aggrieved, instant appeal has been filed on the following grounds: “A. The learned Single Judge has gone seriously wrong in granting chance of being heard to the Writ Petitioner in the matter of regularization of the building of the appellant. As per Rule 27(4) of the KPBR the required setback in the site of the Writ Petitioner is 1 meter. As per Rule 27(4) of the KPBR the required setback in the site of the Writ Petitioner is 1 meter. As provided in Rule 25(3), a tolerance up to 5% of the minimum mandatory open space can be allowed by the Secretary. It is admitted in Ext.P9 report that there is an open space of 95 cm in between the building of the appellant and the boundary wall in the side of the building of the Writ Petitioner. The Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions directed vide Ext.P2 order the Secretary of the Panchayat to decide whether there any possibility to regularized the construction of the building. Since there is no violation of Rules on the side of the Writ Petitioner, she is not an aggrieved person to be heard in the proceedings of regularization of the building of the petitioner. As per Ext.P10 order the Government regularized the shortage of setback at the rear side of the building. B. The building of the appellant was regularized by the Government under the provisions of Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2014 (2014 Rules for short). In the 2014 Rules there is no provision for giving chance of being heard to the neighbours in the proceedings of regularization of building. Therefore, the learned Single Judge should have held that the Writ Petitioner has no right to be heard before passing Ext. P10 order by the Government for regularizing the building of the petitioner. C. The Tribunal provided the chance of regularization by the Secretary in Ext. P2 order. But there is no direction to hear the writ petitioner in the proceedings for regularization. It is pertinent to note that the Writ petitioner did not challenge Ext.P2 order seeking the benefit of chance of being heard. Therefore, the petitioner is not legally entitled for chance of being heard in the proceedings of regularization of the building of the appellant. D. The direction to hear a neighbour of the appellant with regard to construction of the building of the appellant amounts to depriving his civil rights to enjoy his lands. E. The learned Single judge failed to note that the writ petitioner who had constructed unauthorized building is not entitled to approach this Honourable Court for the discretionary remedy under Article 226 against the appellant who had legally regularized the building. E. The learned Single judge failed to note that the writ petitioner who had constructed unauthorized building is not entitled to approach this Honourable Court for the discretionary remedy under Article 226 against the appellant who had legally regularized the building. It is pertinent to note that the writ petitioner did not deny about her unauthorized construction in the counter affidavit in 1.A.No.5/19. F. The learned Single Judge failed to note that the counter affidavit of the Panchayat as well as the counter affidavit of the appellant categorically state that all the conditions in Ext.P10 have been complied by the appellant. Photographs showing the piping system provided for collecting rainwater from the roof of the building of the appellant as well as the closing of the window in the side of the 1" respondent are produced in the counter affidavits. Since the compliance of conditions in Ext.P10 are approved, there is no meaning in the further hearing on the same aspects by the 2nd respondent. G. The learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the Secretary of the Panchayat has considered Ext.R2(2), the complaint of the 1st respondent, and passed Ext.R2(3) order stating that her grievances have been redressed. The 1st respondent approached this Court suppressing about Ext.R2(2) complaint and Ext.R2(3) order.” 13. Inviting the attention of this Court to the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2014, Mr. Georgekutty Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant/4th respondent, submitted that in the said Rules, there is no provision for giving an opportunity of hearing to the neighbouring owners before orders for regularising the unauthorised construction. Though in Exhibit-P2, the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, has granted an opportunity to the appellant/4th respondent, to seek for regularisation, there was no direction to hear the writ petitioner. Appellant has provided sufficient set back to the building. As per Rule 27(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, the set back required for the building of the appellant/4th respondent is one metre. As provided under Rule 25(3), a tolerance upto 5% of the minimum mandatory open space can be allowed by the Secretary. It is admitted in Exhibit-P9 report dated 30.11.2015 of the Secretary, Vilappil Grama Panchayat, respondent No.3, that there is no open space of 95 cms. in between the building of the appellant and the boundary wall inside the building of the writ petitioner. It is admitted in Exhibit-P9 report dated 30.11.2015 of the Secretary, Vilappil Grama Panchayat, respondent No.3, that there is no open space of 95 cms. in between the building of the appellant and the boundary wall inside the building of the writ petitioner. Shortage of set back at the rear side of the building of the appellant/4th respondent has been regularised by the Government under the provisions of Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2014. 14. Per contra, inviting the attention of this Court to the proceedings instituted by the 1st respondent before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapram, order passed in Appeal No.968/2010 dated 14.03.2011 filed by the writ petitioner by which, Exhibit-P1 building permit was set aside with a direction to initiate action under Section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1994, for demolition of unauthorised constructions and the further order of this Court in O.P.(C) No.2388 of 2011 dated 4.2.2013, Mr.R.Ranjith, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, submitted that the 1st respondent is entitled to be heard before Exhibit-P10 order for regularising the constructions made by the 4th respondent/appellant was passed. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Kerala Trading Corporation v. State of Kerala reported in 1989 (1) KLT 353 , Mr. R.Ranjith, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, submitted that dismissal of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be interfered only in compelling circumstances unless if it is exercised in perverse or arbitrary manner and on the facts and circumstances of this case, there are merits to hold that the decision of the writ court was either perverse or arbitrary. 15. 15. Though Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2014 do not provide for an opportunity of hearing to the neighbours in the proceedings of regularisation of buildings, 1st respondent, being the appellant before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, should have been provided with an opportunity of being heard before orders of regularisation are passed and on the above aspect, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sayeedur Rehman v. The State of Bihar and Others reported in (1973) 3 SCC 333 , Nirma Industries Ltd. and Another v. Securities & Exchange Board of India reported in (2013) 8 SCC 20 , Sham Lal and Others v. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2013) 14 SCC 393 and Rakthi Mishra v. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2017 KHC 6579. 16. Referring to Section 2(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2014, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that construction would not come within the definition of “unauthorised construction” as defined under Section 2(j) of the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2014. For the aforesaid reasons, he sought for sustaining the judgment of the writ court in W.P.(C) No.30577 of 2016 dated 18.10.2019. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. Building permit has been granted on 24.02.2010 by the Secretary, Vilappil Grama Panchayat, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.3. Being aggrieved, 1st respondent has preferred Appeal No.968/2010 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. Main grievance of the appellant therein was that building of the 1st respondent is close to the northern compound wall of the building of the appellant/4th respondent and that there is no sufficient space provided in between the buildings, as specified in the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules. The sunshades are protruding to the boundary and water from the appellant's building falls directly on the door of the writ petitioner. She has averred before the Tribunal that during the construction period, the building owned by her was damaged due to cement and other construction materials falling on her building. 19. Before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, the Secretary of Vilappil Grama Panchayat, 1st respondent in Appeal No.968/2010, has filed a written statement. She has averred before the Tribunal that during the construction period, the building owned by her was damaged due to cement and other construction materials falling on her building. 19. Before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, the Secretary of Vilappil Grama Panchayat, 1st respondent in Appeal No.968/2010, has filed a written statement. The Panchayat has stated that as per Rules 60 and 61 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, in plots not exceeding 125 sq. metres, the number of floors allowed is three. The set back provided by the appellant in all the sides, is as per Rule 62 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. It is further stated that sufficient parking facility has also been provided. Appellant has also produced proper sufficient set back of 90 cms. Thus, the Panchayat has stated that there is no violation of any provisions of the Building Rules. 20. Before the Tribunal, appellant herein has filed a written statement that building permit was issued only after satisfying the requirements under the Building Rules. Finding that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit under Chapter VIII regarding buildings in small plots, the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram by order dated 14.03.2011 in Appeal No.968/2010 (Exhibit-P2) held that the building permit cannot be treated as legal and valid permit. Tribunal has directed the Secretary of Vilappil Grama Panchayat to conduct a site inspection, either by himself or by deputing a competent officer, verify whether the building put up by the appellant herein was in conformity with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, Kerala Municipality Building Rules and if not; to decide whether there is any possibility to regularise the construction in case an application is filed by the appellant/2nd respondent therein and if not possible, direct the appellant to make the construction strictly in compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, by making suitable modifications to the construction. 21. Being aggrieved, appellant has filed O.P.(C) No.2388 of 2011 before this Court, which was dismissed by judgment dated 4.2.2013. Thereafter, he has submitted an application dated 28.03.2015 (Exhibit-P8) along with a report of the Secretary of Vilappil Grama Panchayat for regularisation. The Secretary of the said Panchayat after inspection and verification, in his letter dated 30.11.2015 (Exhibit-P9), has recommended for regularisation of the building. For brevity, said letter is reproduced. “Vilappil Grama Panchayat Dated 30.11.2015. Thereafter, he has submitted an application dated 28.03.2015 (Exhibit-P8) along with a report of the Secretary of Vilappil Grama Panchayat for regularisation. The Secretary of the said Panchayat after inspection and verification, in his letter dated 30.11.2015 (Exhibit-P9), has recommended for regularisation of the building. For brevity, said letter is reproduced. “Vilappil Grama Panchayat Dated 30.11.2015. From Secretary, Vilappil Grama Panchayat. To District Town Planner, Thiruvananthapuram. Sir, Sub: Unauthorised building construction — Regularisation Ref: 1. Report by Thiruvananthapuram Town Planner Number D/891/15/K.Dis. dated 12.05.2015 to Chief Town Planner. 2. Letter bearing No.D3/4508/2015(2)KDis. dated 23.06.2015 by Chief Town Planner. Inviting your attention to the above references. As per the direction in reference No.2, the reply is submitted. 1. The applicant Mr. Mahadevan has constructed and is occupying a two storied residential building in a plot of the extent of 1 Are 21 sq.ms. comprised in Sy.No.368/6-5-1, 368/6-5-1-1. Suppressing the above said facts the applicant applied for building permit for a 3 storied building in a plot of the extent of 1 Ares 14 Sq.m. comprised in Sy.No.368/5-1-1 adjacent to the above said plot. Pursuantly Building Permit No.578/09 was issued, on the basis of small plot exceptions. 2. The Honourable Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution in Appeal No.968/10 between the applicant and Mrs. Moniamma, by order dated 13.03.2014 held that the small plot exemption granted under Chapter VIII of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules was not allowable as the adjoined lands of 3 Cents are also belonging to the permit holder and set aside the building permit. However, the Tribunal directed the Secretary to examine the possibility of regularization of the construction on necessary application by the applicant, further on non-application by the applicant, the order directs, to take steps for the demolition of the illegal parts of the construction. The applicant challenged the above order before the Honourable High Court of Kerala in OP © 2388/2011, the Honourable High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal. Complying with the application of the Tribunal, on non-application for regularization by the applicant, steps were taken for the demolition of the building of the applicant; the steps were upheld by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 681/2013. Later applicant filed for regularization application in which both plots are shown as a single one, which was rejected stating that the secretary is not empowered to allow such application. The applicant filed appeal no. Later applicant filed for regularization application in which both plots are shown as a single one, which was rejected stating that the secretary is not empowered to allow such application. The applicant filed appeal no. 897/2014 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. Meanwhile Kerala Government introduced Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularization of Unauthorized Construction) Rules, 2014. Subsequently the applicant withdrawn appeals no. 897/2014 before the Tribunal. 3. On the above mentioned circumstances, the regularization application may be considered under 2014 Regularization Rules. it is submitted that no court orders are there directing, not to consider the regularization application. 4. There are 2 residential buildings in the plot. The application showing the FAR coverage, total extent of the building, total extent of the land is submitted herein. 5. The new site plan shows the location of the road in the plot. The compounding fee calculation, as per the Rules, is shown in Form 1B. 6. Mrs. K.R. Moniamma, Anugraha, V.P ll/1204 Payad, Thiruvananthapuram have filed an O.P. before the Tribunal, averring that the 3 storied building of the applicant is adjacent to the compound wall of her property, without sufficient open space and rainwater from the building will befalling on her property. The applicant has agreed to fix pipes to bring the rainwater falling on sunshade to the property of the applicant, and also to permanently cover the windows of the building on the side of the complainant’s property. There is open space of 95 cm. The complaint can be settled by fixing of the pipes and covering of the windows as stated above. The necessary renewed plan and sketch is submitted herein. Humbly request to allow the application. Faithfully Secretary,” 22. Reading of the above shows that the appellant has agreed to fix pipes to prevent rainwater falling on the sunshade of the property of the 1st respondent and also to permanently cover the windows of the building on the side of the 1st respondent's property. Said letter also shows that there is an open space of 95 cms. According to the Secretary of Vilappil Panchayat, the complaint can be settled by fixing the pipes and covering the windows as stated above. 23. Chief Town Planner in his letter dated 3.5.2016 [Exhibit-R1(a)/2], has recommended regularisation of the building constructed by the appellant. Said letter also shows that there is an open space of 95 cms. According to the Secretary of Vilappil Panchayat, the complaint can be settled by fixing the pipes and covering the windows as stated above. 23. Chief Town Planner in his letter dated 3.5.2016 [Exhibit-R1(a)/2], has recommended regularisation of the building constructed by the appellant. Considering the application filed under Rule 5(6) of the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2014, Government have issued G.O(Ordinary) No.1770/2016/LSGI dated 27.05.2016 (Exhibit-P10) according sanction to the Secretary of Vilappil Grama Panchayat to regularise the building, by accepting compounding fee of Rs.45,475/-. For brevity, said Government order is reproduced: “Emblem Government of Kerala Abstract Local Self Government Department-Thiruvananthapuram District-Vilappil Grama Panchayat-Re.Sy.No.368/6-5-1, 6-5-1-1 of Vilappil Grama Panchayat — Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rule, 2014 — Regularised -Order is issued. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local Self Government (R.A) Department G.O.(Ordinary)No.1770/2016/LSGI. Thiruvananthapuram, dtd 27.05.2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ref. No. 1. G.O(MS)No.150/2104/LSGI dated 21.08.2014. 2. The application submitted by Sri. Mahadevan under Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rule, 2014 3. Letter issued by Chief Town Planner on 03.05.2016. ORDER As per reference No.3, the Chief Town Planner recommended in favour of the application for regularisation of 3 storied residential building constructed by Sri. Mahadevan, Pournami, TC.24/1927(VN-1) having the extent of 199.62 m2 in land in 2.35 Ares of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.368/6-5-1 of the Vilappil Grama Panchayat in Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The Government considered application under Rule 5(6) of Kerala Panchayat (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rule, 2014. Since the building is complied with the conditions of the Rule, it is hereby granted sanction to the Secretary of the Vilappil Grama Panchayat to regularise the building by accepting compounding fee of Rs.45,475/-(Rupees forty five thousand four hundred and seventy five only) Conditions: 1. Arrangements should be provided for the disposal of rainwater of the reservoir in the land itself by providing piping system. 2. Since there complaint against unauthorised construction the same is to be redressed. 3. The compounding fee of Rs.45,475/-(Rupees forty five thousand four hundred and seventy five only) should be remitted in the Government Treasury under the Head “O515 other development programmes — constructions violating provisions of Building Rules” The said amount should be remitted within 30 days and the receipt should be produced before the Vilappil Grama Panchayat and Secretary should make immediate steps for the regularisation of the building. As per the order of the Governor B. Madhu Joint Secretary 1. Sri. Mahadevan, Pournami, TC.24/1927(VN-1), Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram 2. Secretary, Vilappil Grama Panchayat 3.Chief Town Planner, Thiruvananthapuram 4. Chief Town Planner (Vigilance) 5. Town Planner, Thiruvananthapuram. 6. Stock File/Office copy As per Order Section Officer” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of regularisation, 1st respondent has filed W.P.(C) No.30577 of 2015 for a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit-P10 Government order dated 27.05.2016 and for such other reliefs. 25. Rule 2(1)(j) of the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2014 defines 'unauthorised construction' as under: “2. Definitions.-(1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires.-- xx xxx xxxxx (j) “Unauthorised Construction” means any construction or reconstruction as explained under Section 235 AB of the Act and which was carried out or completed on or before the 31st day of March, 2013 and which the Secretary has no power to regularise under Section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Chapter XXII of the Building Rules.” Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules has been substituted by G.O.(P) No.12/2018/LSGD dated 15.2.2018 published in Kerala Gazette Extra Ordinary No.408 dated 20.2.2018. The words “Unauthorised Construction” is defined under Section 2(k) of the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2018 and the same reads thus: “2. Definitions.-(1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (k) “Unauthorised Construction” means any construction, addition or reconstruction as explained under Section 235 AB of the Act which was carried out or completed on or before the 31st day of July, 2017 and which the Secretary has no power to regularize under Section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Chapter XXII of the Building Rules.” 26. Perusal of the above shows that any construction, addition or reconstruction as explained in Section 235 AB of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and carried out or completed on or before 31.07.2017 is unauthorised construction. In the instant case, building permit No.575/09 has been granted on 24.02.2010 by the Secretary of Vilappil Grama Panchayat. On the facts and circumstances of this case, it could be deduced that the construction has been completed before 31.03.2013. Sections 235 AB and 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 are reproduced: “235 AB. In the instant case, building permit No.575/09 has been granted on 24.02.2010 by the Secretary of Vilappil Grama Panchayat. On the facts and circumstances of this case, it could be deduced that the construction has been completed before 31.03.2013. Sections 235 AB and 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 are reproduced: “235 AB. Power to regularize the unlawful building construction.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if any person or institution unlawfully developed any land or constructed any building on or before 31st march, 2013, the Government may, on realization of a compounding fee as prescribed, regularize such land development or building construction: Provided that such regularization shall not adversely affect any planning scheme or master plan, approved under the existing provisions of the Town Planning Act: Provided further that no building construction shall be regularized, which is done in contravention of the provisions in respect of the security arrangements provided in this Act, or the building rules made thereunder. (2) Application for regularization under sub-section (1) shall be submitted within such time and in such manner as prescribed. Explanation :-For the purpose of this Act, unlawful construction means any construction for which the Secretary shall have no power to regularize under Section 235W of this Act or any construction, or re-construction done in contravention of the provision of this Act or the building rules made thereunder or in contravention of any approved plan or any construction done in deviation of any exemption order sanction by the Government or any condition specified therein.” “235W. Demolition or alteration of building works unlawfully commenced, carrying on or completed. Demolition or alteration of building works unlawfully commenced, carrying on or completed. - (1) Where the Secretary is satisfied that – (i) the construction, or reconstruction or alteration of any building - (a) has been commenced without obtaining the permission of the Secretary or in contravention of the decision of the Village Panchayat; or (b) is being carried on, or has been completed otherwise than in accordance with the plans specifications, or information on which such permission or decision was based; or (c) is being carried on, or has been completed in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule or bye-law or order made or issued there under or any direction or requisition lawfully given or made under this Act, such rule, bye-law or order; or (ii) any alteration required by notice issued under Section 235 N has not been duly made; or (iii) any alteration of or addition to any building or any other work made or done for any purpose in or upon any building has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in contravention of the provisions of Section 235-V, he may make a provisional order requiring the owner or the persons for whom the work is done, to demolish the work done, or any part of it as, in the opinion of the Secretary, has been unlawfully executed or to make such alteration as may be necessary to bring the work in conformity with the provisions of this Act, bye-laws, rules, direction, order or requisition as aforesaid, or with the plans and specifications on which such permission or decision was based, and may also direct that until the said order is complied with, the owner or such person shall refrain from proceeding with the work: Provided that the Secretary may, on realisation of a compounding fee as may be fixed by Government, regularise any construction, reconstruction, or alteration of the building, commenced, carried on or completed, without getting a plan approved by the Secretary or in deviation of the plan approved by him, if such construction or alteration of the building does not contravene any of the criteria or specifications mentioned in the Act or the rules made there under. (2) The Secretary shall serve a copy of the provisional order made under sub-section (1) on the owner or the persons for whom such work is done together with a notice requiring him to show cause with in a reasonable time, to be specified in such notice, why the order should not be confirmed. (3) Where the owner or the person for whom the work is done fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the Secretary, the Secretary may confirm the order or modify the order to such an extent as he may think fit to make and such order shall then be binding on the owner or the person for whom the work is done and on the failure to comply with the order, the Secretary may himself cause the building or part thereof, demolished, as the case may be, and expenses thereof shall be recoverable from the owner or such person. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) or subsection (3), prosecution proceedings may be initiated against the owner or the person for whom the work is done. (5) Where the Government is satisfied that the construction, reconstruction or alteration of any building has been carried out in violation of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder or any direction lawfully given by the Government or Secretary, the Government may direct the Secretary of the Village Panchayat to cause the demolition of such construction, re-construction or alteration and if such direction is not complied within the time limit specified in such direction, the Government may arrange its demolition and the cost there of shall be recovered from the Village Panchayat.” 27. Though Mr. R.Ranjith, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, submitted that the construction is illegal, as the building permit itself has been set aside, as stated supra, the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram while allowing Appeal No.968/2010 dated 14.03.2011, granted an opportunity to the 1st respondent to submit an application to the Government to regularise unauthorised construction and if such an application is submitted, directed to consider possibility of regularising the construction and only in a case where it is not possible, directed the 1st respondent to make the construction strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Kerala Municipality Building Rules. 28. 28. Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2014 has come into force in the year 2014 and thus, rules were applied to unauthorised constructions carried out on or before 31.03.2013 in Grama Panchayat areas in the State. Rules 3 and 4 of the abovesaid Rules are extracted hereunder: “3. Submission of application for regularisation of unauthorised Construction.-(1) Application for regularsiation of authorised construction declaring the details pertaining to the unauthorised construction shall be submitted to the Secretary concerned in Form l-A appended to these Rules along with the application fee specified in rule 4 within 308 days of the date of notification of these Rules in the Kerala Gazette. (2) The application shall be accompanied by the following documents, namely:- (a) Receipt for payment of application fee, if any paid to the Municipality as per rule 4 of these rules; (b) Four copies of the floor plans, elevations and sections of the buildings constructed, the site plan and wherever applicable the service plans, parking plans drawn as provided in sub-rule (11) of rule 7 of the Building Rules and specification thereunder,- (i) Self-certified by the owner to the effect that “this is the drawings having reference to the details furnished in Form l-A and documents enclosed along with; (ii) Certified by the licensee to the effect that “this is the drawings having reference to the details furnished in Form l-A and documents enclosed along with and that the details and measurements therein conform to actual constructions made in the site. I further certify that the unauthorised buildings under is/are structurally stable (applicable in the case of unauthorised construction with the exception of high rise buildings/ telecommunication towers). (iii) Certified by a Structural Engineer as defined in this rules to the effect that “the unauthorised high rise buildings/ unauthorised telecommunication towers/the building above which unauthorised telecommunication tower is erected as per the drawings and Form l-A enclosed herewith is/are structurally stable: Note-(1) In the case of huts, a site plan showing the outline of the built-up area, the boundaries of the plot and nearby streets, duly signed by the owner is only required: (2) In the case of constrictions under approved schemes as mentioned in rule 72 of the Building Rules with total Floor area of building up to 60 sq. meters and number of floors limited to two and a stair room, where the construction has to be done by individuals separately, a site plan showing the outline of the built-up area, the boundaries of the plot and the near by streets, duly signed by the owner only is required: (3) The unauthorised construction applied for regularisation shall be indicated in red colour outline in all the drawings submitted. (c) Documents to prove ownership of land; (d) Photographs of the unauthorised buildings signed by the owner, with dated certificate of the licensee to the effect that “this is the unauthorized buildings under reference which was carried out on or before the 31st day of March 2013”. (e) Proof of having completed or carried out the construction on or before the 31st day of March 2013; (f) Proof of valid Registration of the licensee; (g) Proof of qualification of Structural Engineer who has issued the structural stability certificate; (h) Details of cases or copies of orders/decisions thereon in case of the any legal dispute pending before or disposed of by Courts, Tribunal, Ombudsman etc. pertaining to or of reference to the plot or constructions therein; (i) Any Government orders, circulars, any form of communication against the plot/land or any construction works therein; (j) Proof of having stopped the construction before 31st day of March 2013 in compliance of any communication from the Grama Panchayat or Government Directing to stop the unauthorised construction; (k) Copy of plants approved and/or permit issued, if any, by the Secretary as per provisions contained in the Act or Building Rules; (l) Orders if any, granting exemption from the provisions of the Kerala Building Rules 84, obtained earlier; (m) Details of action, if any taken by the Grama Panchayat concerned against the unauthorised construction; (n) Copy of Orders granting exemption from the provisions of the Town Planning Schemes, obtained earlier; (o) Details pertaining to or of relevance to the plot and buildings therein, if any. (3) If the application received is not in order and/or incomplete for further scrutiny, the Secretary shall, within fifteen working days of the receipt of the application, inform the applicant, that the same cannot be accepted. ….................. 5. (3) If the application received is not in order and/or incomplete for further scrutiny, the Secretary shall, within fifteen working days of the receipt of the application, inform the applicant, that the same cannot be accepted. ….................. 5. Procedure for disposal of application.-(1) In the case of applications other than those cited in sub-rule(3) of rule 3, the Secretary shall, verify the application, inspect or cause to inspect the location, site and the buildings and after detailed verification and scrutiny, prepare A detailed report, in quadruplicate in Form 1 B appended to these rules, specify the compounding fee, in case the unauthorised construction is proposed to be regularized, duly sign and make a certificate, as provided therein. (2) If the application received is in order, Secretary shall forward the same along with the documents specified below to the Town Planner concerned within 45 days from the date of receipt of the application, and he shall keep in his office all other documents received along with the application, after due verification:-- (i) Forms l-A and l-B duly filled up in all respects in triplicate; (ii) Three sets of drawings verified, duly signed and certified by the owner, licensee, structural engineer as the case may be and the Secretary; Provided that, no application for regularisation shall be recommended for regularisation, if the unauthorized constructions does not conform to the provisions in section 220 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Town Planning Scheme, if any for that area sanctioned under the Town Planning Act(s); any law, including rule, byelaw, notification etc. made under such law(s) and any Acts like the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and Rules made thereunder, the Kerala Conservation Regulations notified by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India etc. and the safety and security provisions in the Building Rules laid out in Appendix II to these rules: Provided also that, the Secretary may, if the forms and the drawings are found not in order or not, duly filled up or signed or certified, or the information furnished is not correct, return the same to the applicants citing reasons for non-acceptance. (3) The Town Planner shall, consider the duly filled up forms and the drawing forwarded by the Secretary and if found in order, he may, if necessary, inspect or cause to inspect the location and/or the building and prepare technical recommendations in Form I-C. (4) The Town Planner shall forward the following to the Chief Town Planner within 30 days from the date of receipt. (i) Forms l-A, l-B and l-C duly filled up and signed in all respects in duplicate; (ii) Two sets of drawings forwarded by the Secretary and signed and certified by the Town Planner to the effect that 'the technical recommendation made has reference to this drawings': Provided that, the Town Planner may if the forms and the drawings are found not in order or duly filled up or signed or certified, or the information furnished is not correct, return the same to the Secretary, citing reasons for non-acceptance. (5) The Chief Town Planner or an officer authorized by him / her in this behalf shall consider the duly filled up forms and the drawings forwarded by the Town Planner and they are in order, he shall prepare technical recommendations in Form l-D, and forward the following to the Government within 30 days from the date of receipt. (i) One set of Forms l-A, I-B, l-C and l-D duly filled up and signed in all respects; (ii) One set of drawings forwarded by the Town Planner and signed and certified by the Chief Town Planner to the effect that 'the technical recommendation made has reference to this drawings: Provided that the Chief Town Planner or an officer authorized by him/her in this behalf may if the forms and the drawings are found not in order or not duly filled up or signed or certified, he shall return the same to the Town Planner citing reasons for non-acceptance, with a copy thereof to the applicant. (6) The Government shall consider the duly filled up forms and the drawings forwarded by the Chief Town Planner or an officer authorized by him / her in this behalf and considering the merit of the application, may issue orders according sanction to the Secretary for regularisation with or without conditions or reject the application for regularization and forward the same to the Secretary concerned, with copy to the Chief Town Planner, Chief Town Planner (Vigilance), Town Planner and the applicant. The government order according sanction for regularisation shall specify,- (i) the name of the applicant, survey number/resurvey number of the plot/ land with the name of villages, occupancy of the buildings, total floor area, number of floors in each buildings; (ii) conditions, if any, under which sanction for regularisation is granted; (iii) period within which the conditions, if any, stipulated for regularisation is to be complied with; (iv) the amount of compounding fee to be remitted in the Government Treasury specifying the Head of Account and time for remittance. (7) Once the orders of the Government are received, the Secretary shall, issue formal orders on each application, according sanction for regularisation with or without conditions or rejecting the same, in accordance with the orders of the Government and send a copy thereof to the applicant. The Secretary shall, while issuing such formal orders, also inform the applicant to submit all concurrences/approvals, required as per the provisions of the Act and the Building Rules, from various Central or State Government Departments and agencies such as Fire and Rescue Department, SEIAA/Ministry of Environment and Forests of Government of India, Coastal Zone Management Authority, Airport Authority, Railway Authority, Defence Authority, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, District Collector, Chief Electrical Inspector etc. (other than those required from the Department of Town and Country Planning), and check conformity to any law or rules, byelaws, notifications etc. made under such law(s) wherever applicable. (8) The formal order issued by the Secretary according sanction for regularisation, shall specify items (i) to (vi) as stipulated in sub-rule (6) of rule 5 of these Rules. The Secretary shall also publish every month in the office notice board and in the official website of the Grama Panchayat concerned, the list of such orders issued indicating the number and date of the orders issued, the name of applicant, survey/resurvey numbers name of village and taluk pertaining to the plot, details of violations and nature of regularisation such as whether the construction was regularised or not regularised; or regularised with conditions. (9) The owner and the licensee shall be equally responsible for the conformity of the drawings to actual constructions made in the site and the details therein. (9) The owner and the licensee shall be equally responsible for the conformity of the drawings to actual constructions made in the site and the details therein. (10) It shall be the responsibility of the owner and the licensee who has issued the Structural Stability Certificate as per the provisions contained in these rules, to ensure the structural stability of the building. However, in the case of high-rise buildings, telecommunication towers and building, if any, above which such telecommunication tower is erected, the owner and the structural engineer who had issued the structural stability certificate as per these rules shall be responsible for the structural stability of such towers buildings/constructions. (11) The licensee, who issues false certificate/information or violates any of the functions and responsibilities entrusted on him/her as per the provisions of these Rules, shall also be liable for action as prescribed in sub-rules (7) and (8) of rule 144 of the Building Rules. (12) If the applicant fails to remit the specified compounding fee and/or fails to comply with the conditions on or before the date specified in the regularisation order, such order shall cease to operate from the next day of the said date. (13) The Secretary shall maintain a register of all treasury remittances towards compounding fee and shall forward quarterly reports thereon to the Government through the Director of Panchayats. (14) The Secretary shall also maintain a permanent register of all unauthorised buildings/constructions regularised under these rules, containing details such as name and address of the applicant, survey/resurvey numbers and name of village, occupancy, number of storeys, floor area of each floor, violation of rules regularised, number and date of the Government Order and the formal order thereof, by which regularisation was granted, amount of compounding fee remitted with chalan receipt particulars, conditions, if any, stipulated in the order and action taken thereon. (15) The appropriate authority shall take action against Government Servants, as per the Rules applicable to them, who manipulate, prepare and furnish false reports intentionally against the spirit of these rules. (16) The compounding fee once remitted, shall not be refunded under any circumstances.” 29. Rules 3 and 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2018, have been substituted by Government order dated 15.2.2018, and the same reads thus: “3. (16) The compounding fee once remitted, shall not be refunded under any circumstances.” 29. Rules 3 and 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2018, have been substituted by Government order dated 15.2.2018, and the same reads thus: “3. Submission of application for regularization of unauthorised Construction.-(1) Application for regularization of unauthorised construction declaring the details pertaining to the unauthorised construction shall be submitted to the Secretary in Form 1-A appended to these Rules, in duplicate, and the application fee specified in Rule 4 within ninety days of the date of notification of these Rules in the Kerala Gazette. (2) The application shall be accompanied by the following documents, namely:- (a) Receipt for payment of application fee, if any paid to the Municipality as per Rule 4 of these rules; (b) Three copies of the floor plans, elevations and sections of the buildings constructed, the site plan building plan and wherever applicable the service plans, parking plans drawn as provided in sub-rule (11) of Rule 7 of Building Rules, and specification there under,- (i) Certified by the owner to the effect that “this is the drawings having reference to the details furnished in Form 1-A and documents enclosed along with” (ii) Certified by the licensee to the effect that “this is the drawings having reference to the details furnished in Form 1-A and documents enclosed along with and that the details and measurements therein conform to actual constructions made in the site. I further certify that the unauthorised buildings is/are structurally stable (applicable in the case of unauthorised construction with the exception of high rise buildings or telecommunication towers). (iii) Certified by a Structural Engineer to the effect that “the unauthorised high rise buildings/unauthorised telecommunication towers/the building above which unauthorised telecommunication tower is erected as per the drawings and Form 1-A enclosed herewith is/are structurally stable: Provided that in the case of huts, a site plan showing the outline of the built-up area, the boundaries of the plot and nearby streets, duly signed by the owner is only required: Provided also that in the case of constrictions under approved schemes as mentioned in rule 73 of the Building Rules with total Floor area of building up to 60 sq. meters and number of floors limited to two and a stair room, where the construction has to be done by individuals separately, a site plan showing the outline of the built-up area, the boundaries of the plot and the near by streets, duly signed by the owner only is required: Provided further that the unauthorised construction applied for regularisation shall be indicated in red colour outline in all the drawings submitted. (c) Documents to prove ownership of land such as; (i) Copy of land deed (ii) Copy of latest tax receipt (iii) Copy of latest possession certificate (iv) Copy of BTR certificate (v) Attested Copy of the survey sketch from revenue department. (d) Time stamped photographs of the unauthorised buildings applied for regularization under these rules (minimum of 4 numbers from all four sides showing all external details of development) which is to be attested by the owner and the licensee (e) Proof of having completed or carried out the construction on or before the 31st day of July, 2017, (f) Proof of valid Registration of the licensee; (g) Proof of qualification of Structural Engineer who has issued the structural stability certificate; (h) Copies of the documents regarding Court cases (Courts, Tribunal, Ombudsman etc.) pertaining to or of reference to the plot or constructions therein; (i) Any Government orders, circulars, any form of communications pending to the plot/land or any construction works therein; (j) Proof of having stopped the construction before 31st day of July, 2017 on account of any communication from the Municipality or Government directing to stop the unauthorised construction; (k) Copy of approved plans and/ or permit issued if any, by the Secretary as per the provisions contained in the Act or the Building Rules; (l) Orders if any, granting exemption from the provisions of the Kerala Building Rules 1984, obtained earlier; (m) Details of action, if any taken by the Municipality concerned against this unauthorized construction; (n) Copy of orders granting exemption from the provisions of the Town Planning Schemes, obtained earlier; (o) Copy of previous orders if any, regularising constructions within the plot. (p) Copy of the resolution made by all owners or their association (for residential apartments) (q) Checklist and acknowledgement (as in Appendix X) in triplicate (r) Copy of Aadhar card of the applicant (s) Any other details pertaining to or of relevance to the plot and buildings therein if any. (p) Copy of the resolution made by all owners or their association (for residential apartments) (q) Checklist and acknowledgement (as in Appendix X) in triplicate (r) Copy of Aadhar card of the applicant (s) Any other details pertaining to or of relevance to the plot and buildings therein if any. (3) If the application received is not in order and/or incomplete for further scrutiny, the Secretary shall, within fifteen working days of the receipt of the application, inform the applicant, that the same cannot be accepted.” 6. Procedure for disposal of application.-(1) In the case of applications other than those cited in sub-rule(3) of Rule 3, the Secretary shall, verify the application, inspect or cause to inspect the location, site and the buildings and after detailed verification and scrutiny, prepare a detailed report in Form 1B appended to these rules, in duplicate, incorporating compounding fee (Appendix I), in the case if the unauthorised construction is regularised, duly sign and make a certification, as provided therein. The Secretary shall scrutinize the application on first-in first-out basis. (2) If the application received is in order, the Secretary shall forward the following documents to the Town Planner within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application- (i) One copy of Forms 1-A and 1-B duly filled up in all respects with office seal affixed in all pages; (ii) Two sets of drawings verified, duly signed and certified by the owner, licensee, structural engineer as the case may be. The verified drawings shall be signed by the Secretary or any designated person authorized by the Secretary: (3) The other documents received along with the application shall be kept in the office after due verification. (4) On scrutiny of application for regularization, if it is found that the unauthorised constructions does not conform to the following provisions, the Secretary shall reject the application citing the reason for rejection. (4) On scrutiny of application for regularization, if it is found that the unauthorised constructions does not conform to the following provisions, the Secretary shall reject the application citing the reason for rejection. (i) Section 383A of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1994); (ii) Town Planning Scheme, if any for that area sanctioned under the Town Planning Act; (iii) The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (Act 24 of 1958) and the rules made there under; (iv) The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland, Act 2008 (28 of 2008); (v) The Coastal Zone Regulations notified by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, (vi) The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (Central Act); (vii) The Aircraft Act, 1934 (22 of 1934); (viii) Any other law, including rules, byelaws, notifications etc. made under such laws and any similar Acts; (ix) Safety and security provisions in the Building Rules laid out in Appendix II to these rules; (x) if the unauthorized construction is carried out in any land which is acquired for road widening or public land; (xi) If the land has no title deed. (5) The Secretary shall reject the application within sixty days, if they are not in order and or not duly filled up or signed or certified, or violating the provisions of the Acts and rules mentioned in sub-rule 4 of these rules, citing reasons for rejection. (6) The Town Planner shall consider the duly filled up Forms and the drawings forwarded by the Secretary and prepare technical recommendations in Form 1-C. The Town Planner may, if necessary, inspect or cause to inspect the location and /or site and/or the building. (7) The Town Planner may reject and return the Forms and the drawings to the Secretary, if they are not in order and or not duly filled up or signed or certified, citing reasons for the non-acceptance. (8) The Town Planner shall place the following within sixty days from the date of receipt, if they are in order, before a Committee constituted by Government. (8) The Town Planner shall place the following within sixty days from the date of receipt, if they are in order, before a Committee constituted by Government. (i) Forms 1-A, 1-B and 1-C duly filled up and signed in all respects; (ii) Two sets of drawings forwarded by the Secretary and signed and certified by the Town Planner to the effect that the technical recommendation made has reference to this drawings: (9) The Government may issue orders constituting a Committee for considering the applications for regularization of unauthorized constructions with the following members, namely:- (i) The District Town Planner; (ii) The Regional Joint Director, Department of Urban Affairs; (iii) The Secretary, Local Self Government Institution. (10) The Committee shall be convened by the District Town Planner. The Committee shall consider the duly filled up Forms and the drawings placed by the Town Planner and considering the merit of the application, may issue orders according sanction to the Secretary for regularisation with or without conditions and approve the plans or reject the application for regularisation and forward the same to the Secretary concerned along with a copy of the drawing approved or rejected by the Committee. A copy of the orders of the Committee shall be forwarded to the applicant also. Any order according sanction for regularisation shall specify,- (i) the name of applicant, survey number/resurvey number of the plot/land with the name of villages, occupancy of the buildings, total floor area, number of floors in each buildings; (ii) conditions, if any, under which sanction for regularisation is granted; (iii) period within which the conditions, if any, stipulated for regularisation is to be complied with; (iv) the amount of compounding fee to be remitted in the Government Treasury; (v) the Head of Account and the period within which the compounding fee is to be remitted in the Government Treasury. (11) Once the orders according sanction for regularisation with or without conditions or rejecting the same are received by the Secretary, the Secretary shall intimate the applicant accordingly on each application, with copy of the said order. If sanction is accorded to regularise the unauthorised construction, Secretary shall intimate the applicant to comply the conditions, if any in the orders. (11) Once the orders according sanction for regularisation with or without conditions or rejecting the same are received by the Secretary, the Secretary shall intimate the applicant accordingly on each application, with copy of the said order. If sanction is accorded to regularise the unauthorised construction, Secretary shall intimate the applicant to comply the conditions, if any in the orders. (12) The Secretary shall in his intimation, inform the applicant to submit all concurrences/approvals required as per Building Rules from various Central or State Government Departments and agencies such as Fire and Rescue Services Department, State level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Ministry of Environment and Forests of Government of India, Coastal Zone Management Authority, Airports Authority, Railway Authorities, Defence Authorities, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, District Collector, Chief Electrical Inspector, Department of Town and Country Planning etc. and check conformity to any law or rules, byelaws, notifications etc. made under such law(s) other than the Act wherever applicable. (13) The applicant, after complying the directions in the intimation of the Secretary, shall in writing inform the Secretary about the compliance and submit an indemnity bond as in Appendix III. (14) The Secretary on receipt of such letter from the applicant shall verify the compliance in all respects and if complied, Secretary shall then direct the applicant to remit the compounding fee as stipulated in the orders of the Committee according sanction to the Secretary for regularisation. Once the applicant intimates the Secretary with proof of the remittance of compounding fee, Secretary shall issue final orders in Appendix VII for regularisation and copy of the said order shall be sent to the applicant. (15) The Secretary shall also publish the list of such orders issued in the office notice board every month and in the official website of the Municipality concerned, which shall include the number and date of the orders issued, together with the name of the applicant, survey/resurvey numbers and name of village and taluk pertaining to the plot, violations and whether the construction was regularized or not regularised; or regularized with conditions. (16) The details of the Licensees, Structural Engineers, Architects etc., including photographs, who have been involved in the design, supervision and construction of the building under regularization will also be made available in the website along with the details of the building so regularized/rejected. (16) The details of the Licensees, Structural Engineers, Architects etc., including photographs, who have been involved in the design, supervision and construction of the building under regularization will also be made available in the website along with the details of the building so regularized/rejected. (17) The Secretary shall maintain a register of all treasury remittances towards compounding fee and shall forward quarterly reports thereon to the Government through the Director of Urban Affairs. (18) The Secretary shall also maintain a permanent register of all unauthorised buildings/constructions regularised under these rules, containing details such as name and address of the applicant, survey/resurvey numbers and name of village, occupancy, number of storeys, floor area of each floor, Name of Licensee and Structural Engineer, violation of rules regularised, number and date of the sanction Order by the Committee constituted by Government, amount of compounding fee remitted with challan receipt particulars, conditions, if any, stipulated in the order and action taken there on.” 30. Reading of the judgment impugned before us shows that in as much as the cancellation of building permit was at the behest of respondent No.1, who preferred Appeal No.968/2010 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, in which the 1st respondent has made certain complaints, writ court, by observing that the question, whether complaints have been redressed, could be answered only after putting notice to the 1st respondent before regularization, set aside G.O.(Ordinary) No.1770/2016/LSGI dated 27.05.2016 (Exhibit-P10). 31. Section 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2014 does not contemplate any opportunity of hearing to the 1st respondent/neighbour. One of the contentions raised before us by the 1st respondent is that in the absence of any perversity or arbitrariness, judgment of the writ court need not be interfered with. Let us consider a few decisions with respect to what perversity means. “(i) In Arulvelu v. State reported in (2009) 10 SCC 206 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 27, 29 and 30, explained what "perverse" means, "27. The expression "perverse" has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner: 1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English Sixth Edition PERVERSE: Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable. 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English -International Edition PERVERSE: Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable. 3. The expression "perverse" has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner: 1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English Sixth Edition PERVERSE: Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable. 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English -International Edition PERVERSE: Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable. 3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English -1998 Edition PERVERSE: Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law. 4. New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition) PERVERSE: Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant. 5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, Fourth Edition PERVERSE: A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. ...... 29. In Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10 , the Court while dealing with the scope of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution observed as under: "9. Normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of "guilt" is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny. 10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with." 30. The meaning of 'perverse' has been examined in H. B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Karnal & Others v. Gopi Nath & Sons & Others 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312, this Court observed as under: "7. In the present case, the stage at and the points on which the challenge to the assessment in judicial review was raised and entertained was not appropriate. In our opinion, the High Court was in error in constituting itself into a court of appeal against the assessment. In the present case, the stage at and the points on which the challenge to the assessment in judicial review was raised and entertained was not appropriate. In our opinion, the High Court was in error in constituting itself into a court of appeal against the assessment. While it was open to the respondent to have raised and for the High Court to have considered whether the denial of relief under the proviso to Section 39(5) was proper or not, it was not open to the High Court re-appreciate the primary or perceptive facts which were otherwise within the domain of the fact-finding authority under the statute. The question whether the transactions were or were not sales exigible to sales tax constituted an exercise in recording secondary or inferential facts based on primary facts found by the statutory authorities. But what was assailed in review was, in substance, the correctness -as distinguished from the legal permissibility -of the primary or perceptive facts themselves. It is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law." (ii) In S.R. Tiwari v. Union of India reported in 2013 (6) SCC 602 , at Paragraph 30, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as follows: "30. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/ inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is against the weight of evidence, or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with." (iii) In State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjeev reported in (2005) 5 SCC 181 - AIR 2005 SC 2080 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus, ".......to characterize a decision of the administrator as "irrational'' the Court has to hold, on material, that it is a decision "so outrageous'' as to be in total defiance of logic or moral standards." (iv) In State of A.P. v. Abdul Khuddus reported in (2007) 15 SCC 261 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 12, held that, "The High Court, while reversing the findings of the Special Court could also not come to a conclusion of fact that the respondents had perfected their title in respect of the schedule land by adverse possession or that the schedule land belonged to Gandhi Hill Society. Such being the position, we are unable to sustain the order of the High Court, which had set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the Special Court, which, in our view, were arrived at on consideration of the materials on record and which, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be based on no evidence or surmises or conjectures and therefore, it was not open to the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, to set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the Special Court which were based on sound consideration of the materials on record." (v) In The General Manager (P) Punjab & Sind Bank v. Daya Singh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 233 , at Paragraph 24, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as follows: "24. Absence of reasons in a disciplinary order would amount to denial of natural justice to the charge-sheeted employee. But the present case was certainly not one of that category. Once the charges were found to have been established, the High Court had no reason to interfere in the decision. Absence of reasons in a disciplinary order would amount to denial of natural justice to the charge-sheeted employee. But the present case was certainly not one of that category. Once the charges were found to have been established, the High Court had no reason to interfere in the decision. Even though there was sufficient documentary evidence on record, the High Court has chosen to hold that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse. A perverse finding is one which is based on no evidence or one that no reasonable person would arrive at. This has been held by this Court long back in Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE, AIR 1994 SC 1341 . Unless it is found that some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible material has been taken into consideration the finding cannot be said to be perverse. The legal position in this behalf has been recently reiterated in Arilvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 . The decision of the High Court cannot therefore be sustained." 32. Going by the decisions, extracted supra, impugned judgment cannot be said to be perverse. The next question to be considered by us is that when the Statute does not contemplate an opportunity of hearing to the neighbours in the matter of regularisation, merely because, a direction was granted by the writ court, can it be considered as the law declared. It is trite law that courts cannot add or substitute any provision. By providing an opportunity of hearing to the neighbour, for regularising an unauthorised construction, courts cannot add words to the rules or delete, which the legislature did not conceive, which is not permissible. Let us consider few decisions, as to whether, Courts can add or delete or substitute any word to a section or rule, as the case may be. (i) In CIT v. Badhraja and Company reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC 280, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that,- “An object oriented approach, however, cannot be carried to the extent of doing violence to the plain meaning of the Section used by rewriting the Section or substituting the words in the place of actual words used by the legislature.” (ii) In Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramulu reported in (2001) 7 SCC 71 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, “13. We have considered the submissions made by the parties. We have considered the submissions made by the parties. The settled principles of interpretation are that the court must proceed on the assumption that the legislature did not make a mistake and that it did what it intended to do. The court must, as far as possible, adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature. Undoubtedly if there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, the court would not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. The court could not add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there, especially when the literal reading produces an intelligible result. The court cannot aid the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, or add and mend, and, by construction, make up deficiencies which are there.” (iii) In Institute of C.A. of India v. Ajit Kumar Iddya reported in AIR 2003 Kant. 187, the Karnataka High Court held that,- “So far as the cardinal law of interpretation is concerned, it is settled that if the language is simple and unambiguous, it is to be read with the clear intention of the legislation. Otherwise also, any addition/subtraction of a word is not permissible. In other words, it is not proper to use a sense, which is different from what the word used ordinarily conveys. The duty of the Court is not to fill up the gap by stretching a word used. It is also settled that a provision is to be read as a whole and while interpreting, the intention and object of the legislation have to be looked upon. However, each case depends upon the facts of its own.” (iv) In Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission reported in (2007) 3 SCC 720 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, - “It is well settled that courts will not add words to a statute or read into the statute words not in it. Even if the courts come to the conclusion that there is any omission in the words used, it cannot make up the deficiency, where the wording as it exists is clear and unambiguous. Even if the courts come to the conclusion that there is any omission in the words used, it cannot make up the deficiency, where the wording as it exists is clear and unambiguous. While the courts can adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislative or the rule-making authority, it cannot set at naught the legislative intent clearly expressed in a statute or the rules.” 33. On the principles of causus omissus, let us consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unique Butyle Tube Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corporation and Others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 455 & AIR 2003 SC 2103 , wherein it was argued that the Court cannot supply the omissions by the Legislature. While interpreting a provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it and it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it if it is deemed necessary. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that by the principle of causus omissus, Court cannot add words to a Statute. 34. Further, it is trite law that whenever a thing is directed to be done in a manner as provided for in the Statute, it has to be done in the same manner and not otherwise. “(i) In Rama Muthuramalingam Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur District, reported in 2004 (5) CTC 554 , wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court, while explaining the scope of judicial review on administrative action and on the aspect of adjudicating an order pertaining to maintenance of law and order, at paragraph Nos.10 & 11 has held as follows; 10. Maintenance of law and order is ordinarily an executive function and it is ordinarily not proper for the judiciary to interfere in this matter. The administrative authorities have expertise in law and order problems through their long experience and training, and the Courts should not ordinarily interfere in such type of matters. The judiciary must therefore exercise self-restraint and not try to interfere with the functions of the executive or the legislature. By exercising self-restraint it only enhances its prestige. 11. This Court should not ordinarily interfere in administrative matters, since the administrative authorities are specialists in matters relating to the administration. The judiciary must therefore exercise self-restraint and not try to interfere with the functions of the executive or the legislature. By exercising self-restraint it only enhances its prestige. 11. This Court should not ordinarily interfere in administrative matters, since the administrative authorities are specialists in matters relating to the administration. The Court does not have the expertise in such matters, and ordinarily should leave such matters to the discretion of the administrative authorities. It is only in rare and exceptional cases, where the Wednesbury principle applies, that the Court should interfere, vide Tata Cellular v. Union of India, 1994 (6) SCC 651 ; Om Kumar v. Union of India, 2001 (2) SCC 386 , etc. It is also worthwhile to extract the judgments considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench, which runs from paragraph Nos.12 to 14 as follows; "12. In Haryana Financial Corporation and another v. M/s Jagdamba Oil Mills and another, (2002) 3 SCC 496 : 2002 (1) UPLBEC 937 (vide paragraph 10), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: "If the High Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decisions and orders of quasi-judicial authorities, it follows equally that it cannot do so in the case of administrative authorities. In the matter of administrative action, it is well known that more than one choice is available to the administrative authorities. They have a certain amount of discretion available to them. They have a right to choose between more than one possible course of action upon which there is room for reasonable people to hold differing opinions as to which is to be preferred, (per Lord Diplock in Secretary of State for Education and Science v. Metropolitan Borough Counsel of Tameside, 1977 AC 1014). The Court cannot substitute its judgment for the judgment of administrative authorities in such cases. Only when the action of the administrative authority is so unfair or unreasonable that no reasonable person would have taken that action, the Court can intervene. To quote the classic passage from the judgment of Lord Greene M.R. in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, 1947 (2) ALL ER 680: "It is true the discretion must be exercised reasonably. Now what does that mean? Lawyers familiar with the phraseology commonly used in relation to exercise of statutory discretions often use the word 'unreasonable' in a rather comprehensive sense. Now what does that mean? Lawyers familiar with the phraseology commonly used in relation to exercise of statutory discretions often use the word 'unreasonable' in a rather comprehensive sense. It has frequently been used and is frequently used as a general description of the things that must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with the discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters, which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters, which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting 'unreasonably.' Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority. 13. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1996 SC 11 (vide paragraph 113) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over administrative decisions but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct an administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible. In the same decision the Supreme Court observed that judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision but the decision making process (the Wednesbury principle). See also Pramod Kumar Misra v. Indian Oil Corporation, 2002 (4) AWC 3221 , State of Kerala v. Joseph Antony, 1994 (1) SCC 301 , etc. 14. As Lord Denning observed: "This power to overturn executive decisions must be exercised very carefully, because you have got to remember that the executive and the local authorities have their very own responsibilities and they have the right to make decisions. The Courts should be very wary about interfering and only interfere in extreme cases, that is, cases where the Court is sure they have gone wrong in law or they have been utterly unreasonable. Otherwise you would get a conflict between the Courts and the Government and the authorities, which would be most undesirable. The Courts must act very warily in this matter. Otherwise you would get a conflict between the Courts and the Government and the authorities, which would be most undesirable. The Courts must act very warily in this matter. (See 'Judging the World' by Garry Sturgess and Philip Chubb). In our opinion judges must maintain judicial self-restraint while exercising the powers of judicial review of administrative or legislative decisions." On the aspect as to whether, who would be the competent authority to decide on matters relating to public order, the Hon'ble Division Bench, at paragraph Nos.28 to 34 has held as follows; "28. The question arises, who is to determine the matter relating to Public Order? The answer is given in Entry 1 to List II (State List) of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution, which states that public order is a matter within the jurisdiction of the State. Article 162 of the Constitution states: "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the legislature of the State has power to make laws: Provided that in any matter with respect to which the Legislature of a State and Parliament have power to make laws, the executive power of the State shall be subject to, and limited by, the executive power expressly conferred by this Constitution or by any law made by Parliament upon the Union or authorities thereof." 29. It is thus evident that public order is a matter within the domain of the State Legislature and the State Executive. That being so, it is not proper for the Judiciary to interfere in matters relating to public order, unless there is violation of some constitutional or statutory provision. There are various considerations for the administration in this matter and the Court should not ordinarily interfere with administrative decisions in this connection. It must be remembered that certain matters are by their very nature such as had better be left to the experts in the field instead of the Courts themselves seeking to substitute their own views and perceptions as to what is the best way to deal with the situation. In the present case, this Court should not interfere in a matter which relates to the administration, which is in the best position to know about the public order. In the present case, this Court should not interfere in a matter which relates to the administration, which is in the best position to know about the public order. What public order problem would arise if speeches are permitted or prohibited in connection with the arrest of Sankarachariyar and other incidental matters? How should the problem be tackled? It is the administration that best knows these problems and their solution. This Court should therefore exercise self-restraint and should not embarrass the administrative authorities in this connection. 30. Before parting with this case we would like to briefly comment on the subject of judicial restraint while reviewing statutes or administrative decisions. We feel justified in making these comments because the times which this country is passing through requires clarification of the role of the judiciary vis-a-vis the executive and the legislature. 31. Under our Constitution the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive have their own broad spheres of operation. It is important that these organs do not encroach on each others proper spheres and confine themselves to their own, otherwise there will always be danger of a reaction. Of the three organs of the State, it is only the judiciary which has the right to determine the limits of jurisdiction of all these three organs. This great power must therefore be exercised by the judiciary with the utmost humility and self-restraint. 32. The judiciary must therefore exercise self-restraint and eschew the temptation to act as a super legislature or a Court of Appeal sitting over the decisions of the administrative authorities. By exercising self-restraint it will enhance its own respect and prestige. Of course, if a decision clearly violates some provision of the law or Constitution or is shockingly arbitrary in the Wednesbury sense, it can be struck down, but otherwise it is not for this Court to sit in appeal over the wisdom of the legislature or the executive. The Court may feel that a better decision could have been taken or some other course of action could have been adopted by the legislature or executive, but on this ground it cannot strike down the law or the administrative decision. The legislature and the executive authorities in their wisdom are free to choose different methods of solving a problem and the Court cannot say that this or that method should have been adopted. As Mr. The legislature and the executive authorities in their wisdom are free to choose different methods of solving a problem and the Court cannot say that this or that method should have been adopted. As Mr. Justice Cardozo of the U.S. Supreme Court observed in Anderson v. Wilson, 289 U.S. 20: "We do not pause to consider whether a statute differently conceived and framed would yield results more consonant with fairness and reason. We take this statute as we find it." In our opinion the same principle will apply to administrative decisions also. 33. It must never be forgotten that the administrative authorities have wide experience in administrative matters. No Court should therefore strike down an administrative decision solely because it is perceived by it to be unwise. A Judge cannot act on the belief that he knows better than the executive on administrative matters, because he can never be justifiably certain that he is right. Judicial humility should therefore prevail over judicial activism in this respect. 34. Judicial restraint is consistent with and complementary to the balance of power among the three independent branches of the State. It accomplishes this in two ways. First, judicial restraint not only recognizes the equality of the other two branches with the judiciary, it also fosters that equality by minimizing interbranch interference by the judiciary. In this analysis, judicial restraint may also be called judicial respect, that is, respect by the judiciary for the other coequal branches. In contrast, judicial activisms unpredictable results make the judiciary a moving target and thus decreases the ability to maintain equality with the co-branches. Restraint stabilizes the judiciary so that it may better function in a system of interbranch equality." 35. On receipt of the application, inspection and verification have been conducted and thereafter, the Secretary of Vilappil Grama Panchayat, respondent No.3, has prepared a detailed report and forwarded the application along with his report to the Chief Town Planner specifying the compounding fee. Chief Town Planner has also made a recommendation dated 3.5.2016 and thereafter, Government have issued G.O.(Ordinary) No.1770/2016/LSGI dated 27.05.2016. 36. In Kerala Trading Corporation (cited supra), at paragraph 7, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held thus: “7. Chief Town Planner has also made a recommendation dated 3.5.2016 and thereafter, Government have issued G.O.(Ordinary) No.1770/2016/LSGI dated 27.05.2016. 36. In Kerala Trading Corporation (cited supra), at paragraph 7, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held thus: “7. The very question of the amplitude of the appellate power of a Division Bench from a judgment of a single Judge in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution was considered by a Bench of this Court in W.A. No.202 of 1973. Govindan Nair C. J., speaking for the Bench held: ''It is thus clear that even exercise of discretion can be interfered with if the Appellate Court is convinced that the exercise of discretion by the subordinate authority was wrong. But as we said earlier, this is not a case of exercise of a discretion and the view taken by Justice Nambiyar cannot be said to be wrong". We do not think that it is necessary to multiply authorities in support of this accepted but of forgotten principle.” 37. In Sayeedur Rehman v. The State of Bihar and Others (cited supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, case of the appellant therein was that he was dismissed from service by the Managing Committee of a school. On appeal by him, President of the Board of Secondary Education set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement in service. Further direction was given that the appellant should be paid full salary, dearness allowance and increment from the date of his suspension till the date of reinstatement after adjusting the amount already paid. When this order was received by the Managing Committee, the same was obeyed insofar as reinstatement of the appellant was concerned. But, the Managing Committee requested the President of the Board of Secondary Education to review the whole matter specially with regard to the payments for the period of suspension. President reviewed the matter and modified his earlier order stating that the appellant would be entitled to subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. This was conveyed to the District Educational officer. Appellant made representations to the President of the Board and the same was declined, re-iterating that appellant would be entitled to subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. President reviewed the matter and modified his earlier order stating that the appellant would be entitled to subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. This was conveyed to the District Educational officer. Appellant made representations to the President of the Board and the same was declined, re-iterating that appellant would be entitled to subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. It is on the facts and circumstances of the abovesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph (17) observed thus: “.........This unwritten right of hearing is fundamental to a just decision by any authority which decides a controversial issue affecting the rights of the rival contestants. This right has its roots in the notion of fair procedure. It draws the attention of the party concerned to the imperative necessity of not overlooking the other side of the case before coming to its decision, for nothing is more likely to conduce to just and right decision than the practice of giving hearing to the affected parties.” 38. Said judgment is in-opposite to the facts in the instant appeal. 39. The decision in Nirma Industries Ltd. and Another v. Securities & Exchange Board of India (cited supra) relates to land acquisition which is not applicable to the facts of the instant writ appeal as a precedent. 40. In Kanachur Ismalic Education Trust (R) v. Union of India and Another reported in (2017) 15 SCC 702 , at paragraph (19), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “..............Reasonable opportunity of hearing which is synonymous to 'fair hearing', it is not longer res integra is an important ingredient of audi alteram partem rule and embraces almost every facet of fair procedure. The rule of 'fair hearing' requires that the affected party should be given an opportunity to meet the case against him effectively and the right to fair hearing takes within its fold a just decision supplemented by reasons and rationale. Reasonable opportunity of hearing or right to 'fair hearing' casts a steadfast and sacrosanct obligation on the adjudicator to ensure fairness in procedure and action, so much so that any remiss or dereliction in connection therewith would be at the pain of invalidation of the decision eventually taken. Reasonable opportunity of hearing or right to 'fair hearing' casts a steadfast and sacrosanct obligation on the adjudicator to ensure fairness in procedure and action, so much so that any remiss or dereliction in connection therewith would be at the pain of invalidation of the decision eventually taken. Every executive authority empowered to take an administrative action having the potential of visiting any person with civil consequences must take care to ensure that justice is not only done but also manifestly appears to have been done.” 41. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent in support of his contention that an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the 1st respondent before orders for regularising the unauthorised construction are passed under the Act and the Rules are not applicable. Grievance of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner is with respect to providing set back for the rainwater falling on her property. After considering the reports of the Secretary, Vilappil Grama Panchayat and Chief Town Planner, Government have issued Order No.1770/2016/LSGI dated 27.05.2016 (Exhibit-P10) subject to certain conditions, extracted supra. Having regard to the totality of the case, it could be deduced that the grievance has been substantially redressed by the Government. As the Rules did not provide for an opportunity of hearing, direction issued to consider the objections of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner before orders of regularisation is not in accordance with the rules governing regularisation, the same is liable to be set aside. Exhibit-P10 order dated 27.05.2016 is sustained. Impugned judgment is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed.