Allowed

T.Muhammed Basheer Haji v. the Edakkara Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC4 Mar 2008WP(C)/2890/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed petitioner’s writ petition seeking assignment of a door number to a commercial building. Held that since permit was issued after site inspection, refusal to number based on revenue record discrepancy or lack of R.D.O. permit was unjustified; Ext.P4 quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Ext.P4 and directed the respondent-Panchayat to assign a door number to the petitioner's building.

T.Muhammed Basheer Haji Vs the Edakkara Grama Panchayat — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 2890 of 2008(R)

PETITIONER:

T. MUHAMMED BASHEER HAJI, S/O. SAIDALAVI AGED 51 YEARS, THEKKARATHODIKA HOUSE, EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

¶13

THE EDAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDAKKARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.2890 of 2008

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 4^th March, 2008

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

It appears to me that the petitioner is voicing a genuine grievance. He constructed a commercial building on a plot having 12 cents belonging to him. On the very same plot, a residential building having door No.VII/487H belonging to him also exists. Exts.P5 to P7 will show that the petitioner's claim that the property is actually dry land though in the revenue records the same is described as wet land is correct.

¶21

The respondent-Panchayat has filed a statement wherein it is conceded that the construction of the building by the petitioner was on the strength of Ext.P3 permit. But it is contended that Ext.P3 permit was issued by the previous Secretary of the Panchayat without reference to the situation that in the revenue records the property is shown as paddy lands. The Panchayat however does not dispute the existence of the petitioner's own residential building on the property. The statement also does not contend that in reality the property is nilam and not dry land. I am of the view that the insistence of the Panchayat that the petitioner should obtain permit from the R.D.O. under the Land Utilisation Order for conversion of nilam to dry land

¶22

W.P.C.No.2890/08 - 2 -

¶23

before the building is numbered is justified. After all, even without such a permit the residential building was numbered and the petitioner continues to occupy the residential building. The construction of the building was pursuant to a building permit. It should be presumed that the plan was approved and the permit was issued for the construction of the building by the Panchayat only after making necessary site inspection. It is too late in the day for the Panchayat to take the stand that the construction is illegal since the same is without a permit from the R.D.O. Under the above circumstances, I quash Ext.P4 and direct the respondent-Panchayat to assign door number to the petitioner's building.

¶24

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶25

srd

T.Muhammed Basheer Haji v. the Edakkara Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Muhammed Basheer Haji v. the Edakkara Grama Panchayat

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

U.C.Raman Vs Secy. Kunnamangalam Grama Panchayath

Radha Purushothaman Vs St.George Investment & Kuries and Others

Henry Mathew Vs the Executive Engineer, PWD

Gopalakrishnan Vs the Cochin Corporation

Latha Vs Vadakkanchery Grama Panchayat

Sarafuneesa Vs Revenue Divisional Officer