Disposed

A.P.Kunjumon v. the Secretary,Vathukudy Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC17 Nov 2012WP(C)/26086/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal to number a building. The court permitted the Panchayath to number the building after verification and reserved the right to take action if the Tahsildar reports no title.

What did the court decide?

Panchayath directed to number the building after verification; right reserved to act on adverse Tahsildar report regarding title.

A.P.Kunjumon Vs the Secretary,Vathukudy Grama Panchayat — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/26TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No.26086 of 2011 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

A.P. KUNJUMON, AGED 61, S/O.PAREED, ARKOTH HOUSE, MURIKKASERRI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SECRETARY,VATHIKKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MURIKKASSERI P.O.,IDUKKI-685 603.

¶11

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶12

VATHIKKUDY VILLAGE, MURIKKASSERI P.O.,IDUKKI-685 603.

¶13

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶14

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PYNAVU - IDUKKI-685 603.

¶15

4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO DEPT.OF

¶16

LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,

¶17

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶18

**ADDL.R5-KURIACHEN, S/O.JOSEPH, KADUVANAL HOUSE, RAJAMUDI PO., MURIKKASSERI, IDUKKI DIST., PIN-685 604. (ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.12.2011 IN IA.17322/2011) R1 BY ADVS. SRI.JOICE GEORGE, SC SRI. S.SHANAVAS KHAN R2, R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER P.P. PADMALAYAN ADDL. R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.C.JOSEPH

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶20

17-11-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 16047/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.26086 of 2011

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶24

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE 22.7.2011 ISSUED PANCHAYATH.	POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VATHIKKUDY
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE	APPLICATION FORM DATED 5.8.2011 PETITIONER.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE	BUILDING PERMIT DATED 19.8.2011.
EXT.P3(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE	APPROVED PLAN OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE	LOCATION SKETCH.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT.	NOTICE DATED 7.9.2011 BY THE 1ST
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE	OBJECTION DATED 15.9.2011.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COURT DATED 31.5.	INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE 2007 IN W.P.(C) NO.16041/2007.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J

¶30

W.P.(C) NO. 26086 OF 2011

¶31

Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2012.

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner had obtained Ext. P3 building permit. Later by Ext.P4, dated 7.9.2011, petitioner was called upon to produce various records and he was asked to stop the construction and to show-cause by action, should not be taken for canceling the building permit.

¶34

The petitioner submitted Ex.P5 objection to the Secretary of Vathukkudy Grama Panchayath. Since, no action was taken in respect of the matter petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.16041/2007, and by an interim order, this Court directed the authority to pass an appealable order. Since, no action was taken in the matter. Petitioner had approached this Court inter alia , challenging Ext.P4 notice, and for a direction to permit the petitioner to proceed in accordance with the approved plan and permit.

¶35

By virtue of an interim order dated 14.10.2011, this Court had permitted the petitioner to proceed the construction in accordance with the approved plan and permit issued.

¶36

It is submitted that the construction of the building had already been completed, and the petitioner had submitted all the

¶37

W.P.(C) NO. 26086 OF 2011

¶38

¶39

necessary records to the Panchayath, and all the clarifications referred in Ext.P4 had already been given. But the Panchayath is not giving the number to the building on account of the pendency of the writ petition.

¶40

The Panchayath has filed a counter affidavit. Learned counsel submits that, as far as the violation pointed out are concerned, it has already been rectified. There is some dispute as to whether, the property claimed by the petitioner includes Purampokku land as well. The matter is referred to the Tahsildar, which is under consideration and further action is contemplated only subject to any adverse report from the Tahsildrar.

¶41

The Addl. 5^th respondent who appears to have given the complaint regarding violation of building rules to the Panchayath, further contends that the Town Planner by Ext.R5(a), had pointed out certain deficiencies in respect of the building permit, which is not taken into consideration by the Panchayath, while issuing the building permit. It seems that, Town Planner had sent a communication to the Panchayath only on 17.8.2011. The permit is issued on 19.8.2011 and it is pursuant of the letter from the Town Planner, dated 17.8.2011,

¶42

W.P.(C) NO. 26086 OF 2011

¶43

¶44

that Ext.P4 came to be issued. If the building had been constructed according to the building permit issued and if the particulars mentioned in Ext.P4 is taken care of there is no restriction on the part of the Panchayath in proceeding further in the matter. However, any such proceedings will be subject to the right of the Panchayath to take action in the event, there is an adverse report by the Tahsildar concerned. Reserving that right to the Panchayath, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:

¶45

(i) The Panchayath is free to number the building after verifying whether it is constructed in accordance with the plan and permit issued.

¶46

(ii) The Panthayath is free to take any further action, if it is later found on the basis of the Tahsildar's report, that the petitioner had no title to the property.

¶47

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶48

¶49

//True Copy//

¶50

P.A to Judge

A.P.Kunjumon v. the Secretary,Vathukudy Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P.Kunjumon v. the Secretary,Vathukudy 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

Susamma Vs Tahsildar, Kottayam

A.Saleem Vs Government of Kerala & Others

Kuriakose Alias Vs the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner

Dr.Gopu Sankar.M Vs State of Kerala and Others

Madana Mohanan.K Vs the Manager , Gopal Memorial Vocational

M.M.Vargese Vs Kerala Water Authority