Disposed

Vinesh v. Secretary,Perumbavoor Municipality

Kerala HC6 Aug 2007WP(C)/12796/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notice refusing a building permit based on land classification. Court directed respondent to provide hearing opportunity to show land is not Nilam and decide within three weeks, without quashing the notice.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent to afford hearing to petitioner within three weeks to determine land classification and decide on building permit application within six weeks from judgment receipt.

Vinesh Vs Secretary,Perumbavoor Municipality — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2007 / 15TH SRAVANA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 12796 of 2007(W)

PETITIONER:

VINESH.S., S/O.BABU S.S, SANDHYA SADANAM,PONEKKARA, EDAPPALLY,ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.A.B.JALEEL

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

SECRETARY

¶14

PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY PERUMBAVOOR

¶15

THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶16

PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE OFFICE,

¶17

PERUMBAVOOR.

¶18

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶19

ERNAKULAM.

¶20

BY ADV.SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶24

EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD. 30-1-06

¶25

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER DTD. NIL

¶26

EXT.P3 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY R2 DTD. 6-2-06

¶27

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 17-2-07

¶28

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO MR.SABU JOSEPH DTD. 18-2-06

/True Copy/

PA to Judge.

K.M.JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C).No.12796 OF 2007

¶34

¶35

Dated this the 6^th day of August, 2007

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Petitioner has approached this court challenging Ext.P4. Petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to issue building permit to him immediately without having zonal exemption as the property of the petitioner is land and not a paddy field on the basis of Exts.P1 to P3.

¶38

I heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the local authority also. Learned counsel for the local authority points out that the local authority cannot grant zonal exemption. He would submit that property of the petitioner is actually Nilam. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the land in question is not Nilam and therefore Ext.P4 is without any basis. Petitioner relies on Exts.P1 to P3.

¶39

Having regard to all facts, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:

¶40

The first respondent will afford an opportunity of being

¶41

WPC No.12796/07

¶42

¶43

heard to the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to produce such documents which he wishes to rely on to show that the land in question is not Nilam before the first respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent will consider and take a decision in the matter and communicate the same within a period of three weeks from the date of hearing the petitioner. The entire process will be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In view of the view taken by this court that it is not open to the local authority to grant zonal exemption, I am not inclined to quash Ext.P4. But, ofcourse, if it is found by the local authority that the land in question is not a paddy field, the application of the petitioner for building permit will be dealt with on the basis of the decision.

¶44

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶45

sv.

¶46

WPC No.12796/07 3

Vinesh v. Secretary,Perumbavoor Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinesh v. Secretary,Perumbavoor Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Secretary, Arpookara Grama Panchayat Vs K.Ramadevi

Indira & Another Vs Trichur District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Madalan Ibrahim Vs the Pariyaram Grma Panchayath

Suresh Babu Vs Thrissur District Co-Op.Bank Ltd.& Ors.

R.S.Sreekala Vs State Bank of Travancore

Anil Kumar V.S. Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative