Quashed

R.Raghunagh v. Palakkad Municipality

Kerala HC20 May 2013WP(C)/11557/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a building permit application solely based on record-land classification as paddy field and pending road proposal road. The High Court held that physical land condition must govern permit decisions, unimplemented road projects cannot restrict user rights, and remanded for afresh consideration within one month.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P2 (rejection order) set aside; second respondent directed to consider building permit application afresh within one month.

R.Raghunagh Vs Palakkad Municipality — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2013/30TH VAISAKHA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 11557 of 2013 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

R.RAGHUNAGH AGED 27 YEARS S/O.RAVEENDRAN, 40/127, RAJESWARY STREET

¶9

PATTIKKARA, PALAKKAD.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE PALAKKAD-678001.

¶14

ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE PALAKKAD-678001.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.APPU

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 11557 of 2013 (T) ----------------------------

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2863/2012 DT.23-8-2012.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.21-11-2012.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION DATED 4-1-2013

¶24

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 5594/2013 DT.18.3.2013

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

NIL

¶27

------------------------JJ /TRUE COPY/

¶28

P.S.TO JUDGE

¶29

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶30

W.P(C) NO: 11557 OF 2013

¶31

Dated this the 20^th May, 2013.

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 proceedings, by which an application for building permit submitted by him has been rejected. According to Ext.P2, the petitioner's property is situate with an area designated as the Paddy Field Zone. It is also stated there is a proposal for making a road.

¶34

It has been held by this Court in a number of decisions on the point that it is the physical condition of the land at present that has to be examined and not the description of the land in the records. This is for the reason that a land described as paddy land in the records, need not necessarily continue to remain as paddy land. It could have been filled up and utilised for other purposes years back. Therefore, while considering an application for building permit, it was incumbent on the respondents to have inspected the property, ascertained its present condition and to have issued proceedings on the basis of the present physical condition of the land. The above view is supported by the decisions of this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009(3) KLT 899] and

¶35

WPC 11557/2013

¶36

¶37

Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2010(2) KLT 617]. Further, inclusion within a Paddy Field Zone cannot support an order for rejection unless the land is a paddy field. With respect to the proposal to establish a road, it has been held by the Apex Court in Raju S.Jethmalani and others v. State of Maharashtra and others [(2005) 11 SCC 222] that development projects, not implemented by prompt follow up land acquisition proceedings cannot be a ground to restrict user of a land by the land owner. In the present case admittedly, no land acquisition proceedings have been initiated in implementation of the proposal to establish a road. Therefore, the reasons stated in Ext.P2 are unsustainable.

¶38

For the above reasons, Ext.P2 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's application for building permit afresh, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

jj /True copy/

¶40

Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge P.S.to Judge

¶41

WPC 11557/2013 3

R.Raghunagh v. Palakkad Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Raghunagh v. Palakkad Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnakumar.M.C. Vs State of Kerala

Shafi K.V. Vs State of Kerala

Jiju.G. Raju Vs State of Kerala

Aliummer Vs Nellanad Grama Panchayat

Nasim Elyas Vs Kodungallur Municipality

Jose.K.C. Vs Gandhigram Agrobased Industrial Co-Op. Society Ltd.