Partly allowed

D.Radhakrishna Pillai v. Pallikkal Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC29 May 2012WP(C)/5643/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order rejecting a building permit application. The High Court held that the District Collector illegally relied on an interim order to deny permission, as that order could not bar consideration of a fresh application made to cure statutory defects. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P9 set aside; 3rd respondent directed to pass fresh orders within 6 weeks after affording opportunity to petitioner and 4th respondent.

D.Radhakrishna Pillai Vs Pallikkal Grama Panchayat — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2012/8TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 5643 of 2012 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

D.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 49 YEARS RADHAKRISHNA MANDIRAM, VILAVOORKONAM P.O. KALLUVATHIKKAL, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SECRETARY

¶11

PALLIKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PALLICKAL P.O. PIN-695 604, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2. PALLIKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALLIKKAL P.O.

¶14

PIN-695 604, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶16

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 015.

¶17

4. SHRI. P.R.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLA, RAMAKRISHNA VIHAR KALLUVATHUKKAL, P.O.KOLLAM KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 578.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR BY ADV. SMT.HENA BAHULEYAN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WPC NO.5643/12

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.30.12.2010 OF V.SUBRAMANIAN NAMBOOTHIRI.

¶24

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DTD.10.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD.24.3.2011 IN WPC NO.574/2011. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A2-4820/2010, DTD.7/5/11 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶26

EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.13.10.2011 IN WPC NO.18257/2011. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF REPORT DTD.2.11.2011 TO THE TALUK OFFICE, CHIRAYINKIL BY VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLICKAL.

¶27

EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.D1-48226/2011, DTD.17.11.2011 OF TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKIL TO REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶28

EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD.16.1.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENCLOSURE.

¶29

EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.S11-1675/2011, DTD.21.1.2012 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

//True Copy//

PA to Judge

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 5643 OF 2012

¶34

===================

¶35

Dated this the 29^th day of May, 2012

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3^rd respondent and the learned senior counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent.

¶38

In this writ petition, the main challenge is against Ext.P9, an order passed by the 3^rd respondent. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the 4^th respondent approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 33866/10 complaining that the petitioner and certain others are proceeding to construct a temple in the vicinity of his granite quarry without obtaining any building permit or other statutory clearances. In that writ petition, this court passed order dated 11/11/10 injuncting the petitioner herein and others from proceeding with the construction of the structure in the land situated in Sy.Nos.55/1 and 55/2 of Pallickal Village in Chirayinkil Taluk until further orders.

¶39

While that writ petition was pending, it appears that the petitioner herein made an application for a building permit to

¶40

:2 :

¶41

WPC.No.5643/12

¶42

the 1^st respondent. 1^st respondent appears to have forwarded the application to the 3^rd respondent for his permission which was in accordance with the building rules and the relevant government orders. On the proposal so made, the 3^rd respondent passed Ext.P9 declining permission on account of the aforesaid interim order passed by this court in WP(C) No. 33866/10. It is this order which is under challenge.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to think that the District Collector has committed illegality in the matter. This court passed the aforesaid interim order only on account of the fact that the construction was proceeded without obtaining a building permit or other statutory clearances. It was to cure that defect that the petitioner herein had made an application to the 1^st respondent for a building permit. When such an application was considered, the interim order passed by this court in WP(C) No. 33866/10 restraining construction in the absence of building permit could not have prevented the authorities from considering the application or passing any orders thereon. Therefore, the interim order in WP(C) No. 33866/10 should not have been relied on by the District Collector to decline

WPC.No.5643/12

:3 :

permission.

For that reason, I set aside Ext.P9 and direct that the 3^rd respondent shall pass fresh orders in the matter in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and the 4^th respondent. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶48

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶49

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶50

D.Radhakrishna Pillai v. Pallikkal Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Radhakrishna Pillai v. Pallikkal 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

P.v.Damodara Poduval Vs Special Tahsildar La

Dr. Raju Vs the Koothattukulam Grama Panchayath

Kider Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Saleem Vs District Collector, Idukki

Rama Varma Club Vs Corporation of Kochi

M/S.Palghat Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Kerala