Partly allowed

K.L.Prameela v. Kottangal Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC21 Feb 2012WP(C)/1668/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Panchayat Committee's decision to direct the petitioner to wait for a civil court verdict regarding a boundary dispute before deciding on an appeal against a stop-work notice. The High Court held that quashing of a letter conditioning permit renewal on the civil verdict and remitted the appeal for fresh consideration and disposal within a month.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the letter (Ext.P12) directing the petitioner to produce the civil court verdict; direction to the Committee to dispose of the appeal afresh within one month after a personal hearing.

K.L.Prameela Vs Kottangal Grama Panchayat — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/2ND PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 1668 of 2012 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.L.PRAMEELA, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.NANDAKUMAR, PLATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, VAIPUR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANU, SRI. S.K. PREMRAJ.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. KOTTANGAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KULATHUR P.O., VAIPUR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 596, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2. KOTTANGAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, KOTTANGAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KULATHOOR P.O., VAIPUR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 596, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶12

3. SECRETARY, KOTTANGAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KULATHUR P.O., VAIPUR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 596.

¶13

4. N.NARAYANA PRAKASH, PLATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, VAIPUR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 584.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY SRI. P. HARIDAS, R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR).

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C).NO.1668/2012-G:

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

EXT.P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 24/3/1999 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.534 OF 1999 OF SRO, MALLAPPALLY.
EXT.P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.2279343 DATED 16/1/2012 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MALLAPPALLY TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BEARING NO.A3 6(02)/09 DATED 12/1/2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 12/10/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN THE OS.353/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA.
EXT.P4.A:	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ALONGWITH THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 12/10/2010 IN OS.353/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA.
EXT.P.4.B:	TRUE LEGIBLE COPY OF THE PLAN NO.1(SKETCH NO.1) PRODUCED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN O.S. NO. 353 OF 2009 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA ALONGWITH THE COMMISSION REPORT.
EXT.P.4.C:	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN NO.2. (SKETCH NO.2) PRODUCED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN O.S. NO. 353 OF 2009 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA ALONG WITH THE COMMISSION REPORT.
EXT.P5:	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23/12/2011 IN IA.1358/2011 IN OS.157/2011 PASSED BY THE SUB-COURT, THIRUVALLA.
EXT.P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO BEARING NO.A5 1841/09 DATED 31/8/2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION, DATED 9/12/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 16/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29/12/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P10:	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 4/1/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P10.A:	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.85/2012 DATED 5/1/2012 ISSUED BY THE KOTTANGAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER.

¶20

W.P.(C).NO.1668/2012-G:

¶21

EXT.P.11: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10/01/2012 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXT.P.12: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DTD. 10/01/2012. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE EXHIBIT P.5. ORDER SERVED ON THE R.3. AND BEARS THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE R.3.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Prv.

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶28

W.P.(c) No. 1668 OF 2012-G

¶29

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner was issued with a Building Permit for construction of a residential house in a property owned by her, having an extent of 9.6 Ares. It is stated that when the work reached at the stage roof concreting, the 3^rd respondent had issued Ext.P6 notice directing stoppage allegedly on the basis of a complaint submitted by the 4^th respondent that the construction is encroaching into his property. In Ext.P6 the petitioner was required to stop the work until documents of measurement and demarcation of property are produced. The 4^th respondent had filed a civil suit on the very same issue and an Advocate commissioner was deputed to inspect the site. Petitioner relies on the report of the Commissioner and the survey plan attached therewith, in order to contend that allegation raised by the 4^th respondent is absolutely incorrect. It evident that

¶32

W.P.(c) No.1668/2012 -2-

¶33

another notice was issued by the 3^rd respondent as per Ext.P8 stating that even Ext.P6 was issued directing stoppage of construction, the petitioner is continuing with the work. The petitioner submitted Ext.P10 before the Committee of the 1^st respondent Grama Panchayat placing all materials requesting to revoke the direction issued for stoppage of construction. It is pointed out that, in the meanwhile, the civil court had issued Ext.P13 order declining interim injunction to the 4^th respondent, finding that the allegation of encroachment is not true and correct. Since the respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any decision, inspite of dismissal of interim injunction application by the civil court, the petitioner is approaching this court.

¶34

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the validity of the building permit expired and the petitioner had submitted application for renewal as per Ext.P11. The 3^rd respondent has not taken any decision on that application. However, the 3^rd respondent had issued Ext.P12 intimating that the committee of the 1^st respondent had

¶35

W.P.(c) No.1668/2012

¶36

-3-

¶37

taken a decision to the effect that permission cannot be granted unless verdict of the civil court is produced.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent contended that the petitioner is proceeding with construction in a manner encroaching into his property. According to him the report of an earlier Commission deputed from the civil court will indicate such encroachment. It is also contended that there was an order of interim injunction passed by the Munsiff court in another suit whereby the petitioner was restrained from carrying out any construction in the property belonging to the 4^th respondent.

¶39

Sri. P. Haridas, leaned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 contended that the petitioner was not permitted to continue with the work because of the existing dispute regarding boundary of the property, for which a civil suit is pending.

¶40

W.P.(c) No.1668/2012

¶41

-4-

¶42

While considering the rival contentions and facts and circumstances, I take note of the fact that the petitioner was issued with Ext.P3 building permit, as early as in January 2009. Stoppage of the work was ordered in August 2009. In spite of issuance of Ext.P6 notice, the respondents1 to 3 have not taken any decision as to whether there is any violation of the conditions of the permit or deviation from the approved plan, or as to whether there any violation of the Building Rules. It is not justified on the part of respondents 1 to 3 put on hold the construction, which was being carried out on the basis of availed permit, indefinitely, by directing stoppage of the work. Unless the respondents take steps for cancellation of the permit, there is no justification in directing the petitioner to wait for verdict of the civil court. The respondents 1 to 3 has to take a final decision on the matter. It is evident that the stoppage was directed only on the basis of an allegation of the 4^th respondent that there is encroachment of the boundary. If respondents 1 to 3 have got any doubt regarding

¶43

W.P.(c) No.1668/2012 -5-

¶44

correctness of such an allegation, they could have taken a decision relying on the documents and orders of the civil court, or could have sought assistance from the revenue authorities concerned. In the case at hand, I take note of the fact that against Exts.P6 and P8 the petitioner had submitted Ext.P10 appeal before the Committee, which is the appellate authority. The committee was not at all justified in directing the petitioner to produce the final verdict of the civil suit in order to take a decision on Ext.P10. Therefore, I find that there is no justification in the decision alleged to have been taken on 10-01-2004 by the Committee. Hence I am of the view that a direction to the Committee of the 1^st respondent panchayat to have a fresh consideration and disposal of Ext.P10 will suffice to meet the ends of justice.

¶45

Therefore the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P12. The 3^rd respondent is directed to take steps to dispose of Ext.P10 afresh, by the committee of the Grama Panchayat, after affording an opportunity of personal

¶46

W.P.(c) No.1668/2012

¶47

-6-

¶48

hearing to the petitioner as well as to the 4^th respondent. The committee shall take a decision regarding validity of the building permit in question, taking into consideration of all the materials which will produced by the parties, including those documents pertaining to the civil suit.

¶49

A final decision in this regard shall be taken by the committee at the earliest possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

Needless to say that 3^rd respondent shall consider the application for renewal of permit subject to decision of the committee as directed above, without any further delay after a decision is taken by the panchayat committee.

¶51

C.K. ABDUL REHIM

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

AMG

K.L.Prameela v. Kottangal Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.L.Prameela v. Kottangal 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

Vinil Varghese Vs the Pattuvam Grama Panchayath

V.P.Anilkumar Vs the Excise Commissioner

St.Joseph Church Vs the District Collector

P.Shanmughan Vs the Nannambara Grama Panchayat

Badarudeen Vs Elamkunnapuzha Grama Panchayath

K.Saseendran Vs the Special Tahsildar