LEGALITIES : BUILDING RULES

UPDATE

04:19:48 AM gmt 04/23/12

Cheriyath Jyothi B.Sc., M.B.,B.S.,

theCloister,

nr rockPark, Venkode P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695028, IN

No.2012/RTI-kp/01                                              04/23/12

the dy director of panchayath

civil station, trivandrum

NOTE OF THANKS

Sir,

A

1. please refer :your no.C4-4288/2012 dt. 12.4.2012 addressed to the secretary karakulam panchayath.

2. I have since ( i.e. on 21.4.2012 ) received the information requested for under RT act 2005 from the karakulam panchayath. the above info will serve my purpose

3. this is to express my deep sense of gratitude for the prompt response of the dy. director.

B

4. from my side the matter is closed. however, I am enclosing here with photocopies of the envelope in which the information was sent to me by the panchayath which carries tell tale date stamps of the post offices. 

this is in view of the possibility that the state information officer of karakulam panchayath might have claimed that the information was provided in time.

5. I have preserved the original cover and can hand it over to you if so required.

yours faithfully

enclosure: as in para 4 above

( C. Jyothi )

copy to: the state public information officer

karakulam panchayath.                                         - for information

*   *   *

updated  :05:49:34 AM gmt 04/14/12

Application for Information Under Right to Information Act 2005 :

APPEAL ON

From

Cheriyath Jyothi

theCloister,

nr rockPark, venkode PO, thiruvananthapuram – 695028.

To

the appellate authority

and deputy director of panchayath,

civil station, kutappanakkunnu, thiruvananthapuram.

1. Date of submission of application : 06.3.2012.

2. Particulars of information sought :

a ) the name of the building rules relevant to karakulam panchayath and

b) list of later amendments if any to the above rules.

year to which information pertains : current .

3. Name of Office concerned with the information : karakulam panchayath office.

4. Particulars of the disposal of application : COOL INDIFFERENCE; no response

by the State Public Information Officer : as on date, viz 09 April 2012.

5. Brief facts leading to appeal : NO RESPONSE even after thirty days of submission of the application.

6. Other relevant reference : Nil; copies of the application and the receipt issued by the panchayath office enclosed.

place : Venkode – 695028.

date : April 09, 2012.

( c. jyothi )

Enclosures : copies of

i) application under RTI 2005 and

ii) receipt no.1980/2012 dt.06.3.2012 of karakulam panchayath 

   

Cheriyath Jyothi B.Sc., M.B.,B.S.,

theCloister, nr rockPark,Venkode P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695028. IN

No.clo2012/bld/04                                                       April 07, 2012.

the executive engineer,

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

LEGALITIES - BUILDING CONSTRUCTION -SITING

Sir,
please ref.

             i) your letter No.nil dated 02.4.2012 which came as an attachment by eMail.

              ii) your letter No.PC/RP-194/2011 dated 29.2.2012.

A. I am extremely happy and relieved by your assurance vide your letter of 02.4.2012 that there is no legal problem with the construction .

B. However in view of the fact that the panchayath issued the building permit on the basis of the original plan with 2 ( two) meters back yard, I would expect you to modify the plan as per the situation on ground and get it approved by the panchayath before proceeding further.

C. My internet connection is being routed through a proxy server under the control of the members of the secret police of this country who habitually tamper with it and my experience is that the link fails at critical moments.

            As such I would request of you to make all communications by post.

            There is no harm taking a chance with the internet – but please endorse a hard copy as well.

yours faithfully

sd.

( c. jyothi )

&   &   &

Cheriyath Jyothi B.Sc., M.B.,B.S.,

theCloister, nr rockPark,Venkode P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695028.

No.clo2012/bld/02                                                March 05, 2012

the joint director,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

CLARIFICATIONS : REQUEST FOR

Sir,

this is in the context of your letter No.PC/RP-194/2011 dated 29.2.2012.

A. I see that you have accepted that the rear open space is only 1.80 mtrs which is in contravention of the building plan made by your own establishment, based on which the panchayath issued the permit.

B. Now, I would request of you to make a few clarifications regarding the other statements made by you in the communication referred to above.

I am not an engineering professional and have no experience in building construction what so ever. what I am mentioning below is based on information that is available in the public domain to a layman.

if I am making a mistake you are more than welcome to correct me.

i) I find that in your above letter you are quoting from the KERALA MUNICIPALITY BUILDING RULES 1999 and you have enclosed page 73 of the above rules to support your stand.

the building under reference is being constructed in KARAKULAM, a catogary I VILLAGE PANCHAYATH in thiruvananthapuram district. As far as my information goes the rules pertaining to this particular building are the KERALA PANCHAYATH BUILDING RULES (KPBR) 2011.

how does the KERALA MUNICIPALITY BUILDING RULES 1999 which strictly restricts itself to the municipalities become relevant in the case of a panchayath ?

has the KERALA PANCHAYATH BUILDING RULES (KPBR) 2011 been made redundant by a later govt. order ?

I am not aware of any such government orders.

ii) sub-rule (4) of rule 27 of KPBR 2011 states as follows : “Every building up to 10 metres in height shall have a minimum rear yard of 2 metres depth. Provided that where 2 metres depth cannot be maintained laterally throughout due to the peculiar shape of the plot, it shall suffice if the mean depth is not less than 2 metres with minimum depth at any point not less than 1 metre”

unlike the municipality building rules, there is no mention of any exemptions in this regard for buildings under 7 meters hight in the KPBR.

could it be that there has been a waiver in regard to the rear open space at a later date ?

Some of the engineering professionals whom I met recently said they are not aware of any.

kindly enlighten me in this regard.

incidentally, I have handed over a copy of the KPBR 2011 to your office for ready reference. I do not find any mention of it at all in your above letter.

the fact of the matter is that I do not believe in going round begging the officialdom for favours

- kindly bear with me.

yours faithfully

sd.

( c. jyothi ))

*    *    *

THE PERSPECTIVE 

*   *   *


letter of 20120121

Cheriyath Jyothi B.Sc., M.B.,B.S.,

theCloister, nr rockPark,Venkode P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695028, IN.

No.clo2012/bld/00                                           january 21, 2012

SITING OF THE BUILDING

1. this is regarding the house being constructed for me by your team at the site at the above address.

2. from the basement part which has almost been completed I feel that the siting has not been done properly and the building once completed in the present position will NOT conform to the stipulations in the kerala Panchayat Buildings Rules, 2011.

3. I have done the necessary spade work in the last couple of months and, with your kind help, am keen on competing the house at the earliest. But before going ahead I would want to ensure that I am not going to end up with an illegal construction in my hand.

4.   I would appreciate it very much if a graduate engineer from your own staff ( other than the one already involved in the work done over here ) would kindly visit the site and inspect the structure already constructed and advise at the earliest.

sd.

( C. Jyothi )

To

the director,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

*    *    *

first feedBack to builder 

Cheriyath Jyothi B.Sc., M.B.,B.S.,

theCloister, nr rockPark,

Venkode P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695028, IN

No.clo2011/bld/00                                               October 19, 2011

feed back

I. THE “FIRST” BILL

a. the “first” bill after the basement work has been more or less completed has been made excluding the very first work taken up – excavation, the digging of the earth for the foundation, the so called “vanam vettal”.

1. The rates for the excavation initially I was told was Rs.8/- per cft. This was later on raised to Rs.11/- per cft on the ground that the soil was hard - ”gravel”. Ironically, in the vary same foundation with a length of less than ten meters the soil was found too soft at one end and a concrete slab has been made at the base of the pit there !

2. Even at the increased rate I have paid an amount a few thousand rupees more than the calculated amount.

Could that be the reason that the account is not being settled ?

b. The increase in rate for the “vanam vettal“ is in line with the general trend that can be found throughout the bill.

1. For “atichu kettal” the rubble work above ground, the rate quoted in the draft was rs.19/- per cft but in the “first” bill it has been increased to Rs.25/- cft.

2. Again for the “steel work” part of the concrete work in the excavated area I was told to pay Rs.1200/- but the contractor insisted on Rs. 1800 and ultimately I was made to pay what the contractor wanted.

3. These are instances which are in my knowledge directly. I feel the same could be true of the rates and charges for other items in the bill as well. For example the rate for making the brick belt that involves a lining of a single brick on each side with 9cm x 9cm concrete in between and “steel work” of putting just one single 8mm steel rod inside the concrete at rs.40/- for 30cms ( 1 foot) I feel are exorbitant.

4. I feel the goal posts were being shifted a bit too frequently to suit your convenience.

5. Even if the rates were raised at a later date, as being claimed, I do not think you can raise it with retrospective effect. That way If the bills were prepared in time the rates would have been lower.

I would like your co-ordinator to have a look into this bill approved by the associate co-ordinator and see that the rates applied are the correct ones and ensure that I am not being taxed too heavily in future as well.

II. THE WORK SUPERVISION PART

a. When every one of your staff at the site said that “kalakki ozhikkal” ( the practice of putting earth on top of the underground rubble work and pouring water on top, the theory being that the earth, along with the water, will percolate into the rubble and fill the gaps in between the rocks ) was repeated as per my instructions, some one was lying, and I know who; it is not me.

1. It is not me who ordered the “repeat”. There was no question of my doing so for I feel that “kalakki ozhikkal” as done at my site is a futile exercise, the end result of which, as far as I could see, was a “mud belt” on top of the underground rubble work. in fact, I was really sorry that the 500ltrs of water I had transported to the site on my own from a puddle in the rocks had been used up in this endeavor and there was no question of my asking to repeat it exhausting another big load of water.

2. But I did telephone an engineer on your staff who knew me slightly ( as your two engineers directly involved in the construction, were not attending my calls, a very frequent phenomenon ) and suggested that we put this hypothesis to test in academic interests and lift up a few of the rock pieces from the rubble and see how much earth has actually gone in to the gaps between the rock pieces underground. I even volunteered to pay extra for the work done in lifting the rock pieces and replacing them. That was all.

I have been making suggestions from the very beginning, from the designing stage onwards. But the final decision always was left to you, the professionals in this field.

b. However the work supervision part I feel can do with some improvement. This was obvious from the very fact that your professionals were forced to make changes based on the comments made by me, a lay man, and that too on critical aspects.

1. For instance,

i) the rubble work on the part of the basement meant to support the walls on the inside of the building was not prepared for taking the wt on the edge - unlike the outer four walls of the building, for example, where the rock pieces were stacked carefully to get as smooth and regular an edge as possible on the outer side. With my very limited knowledge of basic physics and my extremely dull intellect I thought it was possible that under the circumstances if built on the edge of the rubble work, ( mark you, it is not a concrete slab and is an irregular structure ) the walls might become unstable - I was worried.

ii) The crux of the problem here was that from the very beginning, the instructions contained in your own clear cut line diagram was being flouted with impunity. The workers on ground probably have not been briefed and most likely were not even aware of the line diagram.

iii) The excavation was not done exactly where it was meant to be. The result was that if the brick belt and there by, the walls inside the building, were located at the centre of the rubble work as shown in the plan, the internal diamensions of the rooms would have increased/decreased by a fraction, say for example from 300 cms it would have become 310 cms or may be 290cms.

iv) Rather than accepting this insignificant change in the diamensions of the room, your professionals decided to move the belt and thereby the wall to the brink and for all practical purposes risk compromising the integrity of the structure – a very wise decision in deed! I thought that a very safe and sensible decision would have been to make these walls in the interior at the centre of the rubblework as clearly shown in the line diagram ( and that excludes the toilet area ); at least no harm could have been done that way.

v) All of this was happening when the brick belt itself was yet to be made. What was required was just move the markers if the suggestion was acceptable but people on ground were making a hue and cry about it!

vi) It was when I found that your men on the spot were not able to even comprehend what I was saying that I tried contacting your office and mailed pictures to you; All I had wanted was a second opinion before the damage if any was done. I am glad that my suggestion was accepted at least partially.

2. The above instance involves just simple common sense and is obvious to an ordinary mortal like me. But unlike you learned professionals, I wouldn't be knowing the a,b,c of the intricacies of the more complicated construction matters that are going to come up at the later stages.

3. I am sorry to say that your attitude to the whole project was marked by apathy and indifference. I am aware that the construction of this very small house is pea-nuts to you people; but to me it is all important and under my special circumstances, literally a question of life and death.

My request to you in this context is that more attention be paid from your side to what is happening on ground.

III. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COOL

Finally, please dont get angry because you were caught napping.

No tantrums and no shoutings – not at me; I won't have it, under any circumstance.

( C. Jyothi )

*   *    *

let us see what the panchayath says