JUDGMENT : Amit Rawal, J. These writ appeals have been preferred against the common judgment of the Single Bench dated 8.2.2019. 2. Gandhi Bazar Merchants Society is a registered society under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific, and Charitable Societies Act formed by the shop owners of the Gandhi Bazar, a shopping complex situated within Perumbavoor Municipality. The property where the Gandhi Bazar is situated was part of a larger extent of property admeasuring 69 cents. The ersthwile owners of the property mutually decided to divide the plots into five, with Plot A having 15 cents, Plot B-15.250 cents, Plot C- 15.250 cents, Plot D - 11.750 cents, and Plot E - 11.50 cents. The Gandhi Bazar building, consisting of about 40 shop rooms, is situated in Plots A, D, and E, whereas Plot C is in the name of Abdul Latheef and Fathima, who had subsequently purchased it from Suja Rajan. Suja Rajan is claiming the ownership of Plots B and C, having extents of 15.250 and 15.250, for a total of 30.5 cents. The shop owners of Gandhi Bazar had entered into an agreement with the property owners for allotment of specified undivided shares in Gandhi Bazar, and after construction of the building with the undivided shares, along with the parking area, purchased under different sale deeds dated 31.05.1994, and a total extent of 800 square meters of the area was set apart as parking space for the members of the appellant society. It is pertinent to mention that the Gandhi Nagar building was constructed with the building permit No. BA/281/92-93 issued by the Municipality. Since there was certain litigation between the squatters/encroachers who had set up the stalls in front of the building owned by the Gandhi Bazar, i.e., A, D, and E, a writ petition was filed, wherein the municipality made the statement that they will be removing the construction. However, in the meantime, the erstwhile owners, i.e., Abdul Latheef and Fathima, respondents 3 and 4, started construction of a building on Plot C, purchased under sale deed No. 466/1993, and on inquiry, it was revealed that the building permit was obtained by showing 800 square meters of parking area of the Gandhi Bazar as evident from the building permit dated 05.10.2006. Gandhi Bazar Society raised the objection before the Municipality on 19.02.2011. Gandhi Bazar Society raised the objection before the Municipality on 19.02.2011. Noticing that the objection was raised, the erstwhile owners, respondents 3 and 4, submitted a revised plan showing the parking area of the Gandhi Bazar building as a common area and shifted their parking area to the basement / cellar portion. On the basis of the revised plan, a new building permit was issued on 24.02.2011 to the erstwhile owners. The permit issued with the cellar parking area was also objected to by the Gandhi Bazar building owners on various grounds. In the meanwhile, the erstwhile respondents 3 and 4 submitted another revised plan showing the parking area of the Gandhi Bazar building as a private road of 4.5 meters of width, leading up to the building constructed by respondents 3 and 4. Another revised plan permit dated 30.06.2011 was issued, which was objected to by filing a complaint apprehending that the permit may not be cancelled. Respondents 3 and 4 submitted a completion certificate on 02.11.2011 and requested the Municipality for issuance of an occupancy certificate. 3. However, on the receipt of the completion certificate and the application for occupancy certificate, the Secretary of Municipality issued a communication to the erstwhile owner pointing out that in the absence of a document showing access to the building of respondents 3 and 4, their application for issuance of occupancy could not be considered but only after obtaining the survey sketch from the Taluk Surveyor, and in the meantime, ongoing construction was ordered to be stopped. But again, a request at the behest of respondents 3 and 4 for issuance of an occupancy certificate was submitted, as they did not intend to carry out the balance construction, which was duly replied to by the municipality that it could not be done in the absence of access as contemplated under Rule 33 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules . The aforementioned notice dated 17.11.2011 issued by the Municipality was challenged by respondents 3 and 4 before the Tribunal, by allegedly suppressing certain materials/provisions concerning the issuance of the deemed occupancy certificate. 4. The tribunal considered the appeal filed by respondents 3 and 4 along with appeal 833 of 2011 filed by Smt. Suja Rajan, the adjoining property owner. The aforementioned notice dated 17.11.2011 issued by the Municipality was challenged by respondents 3 and 4 before the Tribunal, by allegedly suppressing certain materials/provisions concerning the issuance of the deemed occupancy certificate. 4. The tribunal considered the appeal filed by respondents 3 and 4 along with appeal 833 of 2011 filed by Smt. Suja Rajan, the adjoining property owner. The entire file maintained by the Municipality was made available, yet the Tribunal, without considering all relevant materials, set aside the building permit dated 01.07.2011 on a technical ground ie. the issue of delegation, which led to the filing of the writ petition by Gandhi Bazar in 2012. Similarly, the order of the Tribunal was also challenged by the erstwhile owners through W.P.(C) No.12016 of 2012. This Court, considering that the Tribunal had committed a mistake in deciding the appeal, set aside the order and relegated the parties to appear before the tribunal, vide Exhibit-P14 judgment in W.P.(C) No. 13047 of 2012. The Tribunal, reconsidered the matter and held that the Municipal Engineer was competent to issue the building permit but observed that since the original plan pertaining to the entire context of the land was not produced by the Municipality, it could not be inferred from the available material that the original owners had conceived an idea of providing a common passage having a width of 9.2 meters at the beginning and 6.80 meters at the end as an access to plot C belonging to erstwhile respondents 3 and 4 and now to Suja Rajan. The tribunal vide order dated 06.12.2012, Ext.P17 allowed the appeals and directed the Secretary of the Municipality to consider the application submitted by erstwhile owners respondents 3 and 4 in a particular manner, according to the submissions of the writ petitioner and the appellants irrespective of the deviations/violations in the construction, and accordingly, a building number was allotted in favour of respondents 3 and 4, but again in turn staked the claim over the common parking area, considering it to be a private street giving access to their building, and filed a writ petition. 5. In the meantime, Suja Rajan had also filed a writ petition to confirm the permit and directed to issue the occupancy certificate. It is in that background writ petitions were filed. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, present intra court appeals. 6. 5. In the meantime, Suja Rajan had also filed a writ petition to confirm the permit and directed to issue the occupancy certificate. It is in that background writ petitions were filed. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, present intra court appeals. 6. This Court vide interim order dated 27.03.2019, noticing that the occupancy certificate has been issued to Suja Rajan, the successor in interest of respondents 3 and 4 regarding the construction of the building on Plot C observed that the issuance of occupancy certificates shall be subject to the outcome of the writ appeals. The order dated 27.03.2019 reads as under: ''The petitioners in Writ Petition No.3496 of 2013 are the appellants herein, aggrieved by the judgment dated 8.2.2019 of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Petition was preferred challenging Ext.P17 order dated 6.12.2012 of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No. 827 of 2011, where the Tribunal had partly allowed the appeal preferred by the 3 rd and 4 th respondents (Abdul Lathef and Fathima Latheef), who were constructing a building on plot C of land that measured 69 cents and which was subdivided into five plots namely A, B, C, D & E. The said Abdul Latheef and Fathima Latheef had approached the Tribunal challenging the refusal by the Perumbavoor Municipality of their application for grant of Occupancy Certificate in respect of the building constructed by them on plot C. The Tribunal, after considering the appeal, partly allowed the same and directed that the revised plan submitted by the said persons had to be accepted by the Municipality and Occupancy Certificate granted in respect of the construction put up by them. 2. It is challenging the said finding of the Tribunal, that the writ petition was filed by the appellants herein, impugning the order of the Tribunal and contending that the Occupancy Certificate could not have been granted to the construction put up in plot C, without first determining whether there had been sufficient set back as also access to the plots B & C, for the purposes of grant of the Occupancy Certificate in accordance with the Kerala Municipality Building Rules . 3. 3. The leamed Single Judge, who considered the matter found that the issue of whether there was sufficient access to plots B & C as also whether a portion of the access shown could be treated as a pathway resulting from relinquishment of rights by the owners of shop rooms in block B (covering plots A & B), had already been considered by the Tribunal and there was no necessity for interfering with the factual findings entered by the Tribunal for Local Self Govemment Institutions. It is accordingly, that the writ petition came to be dismissed. 4. Before us, the learned Senior Counsel Sri. S. Sree kumar, assisted by Sri.Arjun Raghavan, appearing on behalf of the appellants would contend that the issue of whether or not there was any relinquishment of rights by the owners of the shop rooms in block B, and whether as a result of such relinquishment there is enough space to provide access to plots B & C, could not have been determined by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and ought have been determined through civil proceedings before a Civil Court. It is stated that the issue of relinquishment had to be established by documents that clearly indicated that there was relinquishment of title by the owners of the plots and hence the finding entered by the Tribunal cannot be legally sustained. 5. Per contra, it is submitted by Sri. It is stated that the issue of relinquishment had to be established by documents that clearly indicated that there was relinquishment of title by the owners of the plots and hence the finding entered by the Tribunal cannot be legally sustained. 5. Per contra, it is submitted by Sri. Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 that the Tribunal had gone into the contentions raised by the appellants before it, and in the connected appeal filed by the owner of Plot B, the prayer was only for preventing the owners of plot C from blocking the access already enjoyed by her, thereby admitting that prior to the constructions effected in plot C, the owners of Plot R already had access to their plot through the northern portion of plot B & C. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that consequent to the order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, in the appeal aforementioned, the Municipality considered the revised completion plan submitted by the respondents and granted an Occupancy Certificate on 20.12.2012 for the building constructed by the respondents in plot C. Thereafter, on the writ Petition being filed before this Court, there was a stay granted against the operation of the Occupancy Certificate, which stay was vacated with the dismissal of the writ petition along with a direction to the owners of plot C to submit a completion plan within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and a further direction to the Secretary of the Municipality to process the completion plan and take a decision thereon within a month, after taking into account the directions issued by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The learned counsel for the Municipality Sri. Mathew B. Kurian would submit that the revised completion plan as mandated by the learned Single Judge was submitted by the respondents (owners of plot C) but inasmuch as there were some defects in the same, it was returned for fresh submission by the said respondents. 6. Taking note of the rival submissions and finding that the Occupancy Certificate has already been issued in respect of the building constructed on plot C, we deem it appropriate to admit the Writ Appeal. First respondent Municipality is represented by Sri. Mathew B. Kurian. Respondents 3 and 4 are represented by Sri. 6. Taking note of the rival submissions and finding that the Occupancy Certificate has already been issued in respect of the building constructed on plot C, we deem it appropriate to admit the Writ Appeal. First respondent Municipality is represented by Sri. Mathew B. Kurian. Respondents 3 and 4 are represented by Sri. Vinod Bhat. Notice to the second respondent is dispensed with. The respondents shall file their response to the averments in the appeal within a month. We make it clear that while further proceedings pursuant to grant of Occupancy Certificate are not being interdicted at this stage, all further proceedings pursuant to the grant of Occupancy Certificate as also all further steps taken pursuant to the direction of the learned Single Judge shall be subject to the outcome of the Writ Appeal. In view of the apprehension raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, we further make it clear that while applications for statutory licences and permissions submitted by the occupants of the building in question can be considered by the statutory authorities concerned, the grant of any such licence/permission will be subject to the outcome of the Writ Appeal.'' 7. On revelation of the facts noticed above, the erstwhile owners had on their own, divided the 69 cents of land by preparing a sketch plan providing a passage to all the plots, i.e., Plots A, B, C, D, and E, having different denominations as indicated above of 15.90 links. The owner of Plot C, whose permit has been validated and occupancy certificate issued, intends to use the said passage for commercial purposes and, in the permit, has shown the 15.90-link passage as part of his own land so as to overcome the objection regarding the insufficiency of the land area for the construction of the multi-storied building. In other words, with a plot having 15.250 cents, the owner of Plot C cannot raise a multi-storied building until and unless the area is increased by adding up the 15.90 links shown as passage. This aspect was not noticed either by the Tribunal or by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the Gandhi Bazar Merchants Society, ignoring the vital fact that, as per the thandaper records, the ownership of the land vests in the erstwhile owners, respondents 3 and 4, now represented by Suja Rajan, who continues to pay the property tax. It is pertinent to mention that one Daisy Paul was the owner of 69.5 cents of land, she subdivided the plots as A, B, C, D, and E in the manner mentioned above, with a passage of 15.90 links and by separate sale deeds sold these properties. Meaning thereby, one person, without causing an entry in the revenue record, divided the 69 cents of land and sold it to five sets of persons by five sale deeds. By virtue of the sale deed, the five sets of persons have become owners of a particular portion of the property described in the sale deeds. Now the question which arises is whether one of the co-owners having an extent of 15.250 cents of land in Plot B and also 15.250 of land in Plot C, can include in the already divided share shown in the sketch plan with a passage of 15.90 links of property to overcome the objection of the municipality for raising a construction of a multi-storied building, the answer would be 'No'. All the owners have acquired an independent right over the property with an understanding that there will be a passage of 15.90 links of land and that passage cannot be tinkered with by any of the co- owners by adding in their holding in any mode or in the manner and mode as attempted to be made by the plot holders B and C. This aspect has totally escaped the notice of the tribunal while granting the permit as well as the occupancy certificate. The Municipal Building Act and the Rules envisage different specification of setbacks in respect of buildings having ground floor, single - storied, or for second floor. Even with the construction of two floors, the setback would be reduced, and therefore the question again arises whether the owners of Plots B and C, particularly C, in order to overcome the objection of lesser set back, can encroach upon the passage already mentioned in the site plan as 15.90 links of the width being shared by all the plot holders. The answer would be 'No'. 8. The entire exercise has been undertaken without a survey of the actual area of construction pertaining to Plot C, and without reference to the original sketch by virtue of which five plots were carved out under five sale deeds in favour of different owners. The answer would be 'No'. 8. The entire exercise has been undertaken without a survey of the actual area of construction pertaining to Plot C, and without reference to the original sketch by virtue of which five plots were carved out under five sale deeds in favour of different owners. The tribunal on this aspect cannot assume the jurisdiction of a civil court, as it would require demarcation of the area with the assistance of the revenue officers by associating all the affected parties. Thus, while keeping the interim order intact for the time being, we dispose of the writ appeal by relegating respondents 3 and 4 and their assignee, Suja Rajan, to approach the civil court by instituting a suit in such manner as they deem appropriate, to establish whether, by virtue of the sale deed in their favour, they have become owners of 15.250 cents of land excluding the 15.90 links of road width or not by impleading all the affected parties, that is, the owners of Plot Nos. A, D, and E. All the parties shall be at liberty to raise objections and adduce evidence in support of their respective cases and ultimately, in case the suit is decided either of the way, like in favor of the erstwhile owners of Plot C and Suja Rajan, the occupancy certificate will continue to hold the field and if otherwise, consequential action has to be taken. However, it is made clear that the finding of the one court could not be considered as final; it has to be up to the highest court. Only then, the action as contemplated by us is to be required to be taken. We are sanguine of the fact that the erstwhile owners, respondents Nos. 3 and 4, as well as Suja Rajan, will file the civil suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.