Partly allowed

Jannaathunisa v. the Kollangode Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC28 Jun 2012WP(C)/2461/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of building permit application due to missing land utilization order. Court set aside the order based on photographic evidence and directed fresh consideration after site inspection.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P1 order set aside; Secretary directed to consider application afresh after site inspection and pass order within six weeks.

Jannaathunisa Vs the Kollangode Grama Panchayath — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/7TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 2461 of 2012 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JANNATHUNISA, AGED 35 YEARS W/O.C.SYED IBRAHIM, 'SHAHANAS', VENNEERVAYAL; KARAPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE KOLLANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLANGODE PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 506.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MJL

WPC.NO:2461/2012

APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY HE RESPONDENT AS NO.8274/2011 DATED 22.10.2011.

¶18

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER AND THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P A TO JUDGE

MJL

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.2461 of 2012

¶25

Dated this the 28^th day of June, 2012

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Ext.P1 order passed by the respondent Panchayath rejecting an application made by the petitioner for a building permit, is under challenge. Reasons stated in Ext.P1 order is that the petitioner did not produce an order under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The case of the petitioner is that the land in question is a fully developed garden land with construction all around it. This contention of the petitioner is sought to be substantiated by referring to Ext.P2 series of photographs also. Going by the photographs also what is contended seems to be well founded. In that view, I am inclined to think that the matter requires re-consideration. For that purpose, I set aside Ext.P1 and direct that the Secretary will consider the application afresh, after conducting an inspection of the site and ascertaining the real state of affairs as is presently available. Orders thereon the application shall be passed within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶28

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶29

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶30

Jannaathunisa v. the Kollangode Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jannaathunisa v. the Kollangode Grama Panchayath

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

C.T.Khadeeja Vs P.Vijayadevi, the Environmental Engineer

Vilasini Vs Special Tahsildar (R.R.),Kochi

K.M.Abdul Khader Kunju Vs State of Kerala

Sebastian Joseph Vs the Authorised Officer

Kollam Jilla Kallu Chethu Madya V.T.U. Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Koshy Vs the State of Kerala