Disposed

Abdul Haris V.H. v. Palakad Municipality

Kerala HC24 May 2013WP(C)/9229/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of building permit on the ground that property is recorded as paddy field. Court held order unsustainable as authority failed to verify present land state and set it aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside rejection set aside; Petitioner directed to reconsider application after inspecting the land; Order to be passed within one month.

Abdul Haris V.H. Vs Palakad 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

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2013/3RD JYAISHTA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 9229 of 2013 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ABDUL HARIS V.H, S/O. LATE V.K.HAMSA, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, PALLIPURAM P.O. PALAKKAD, PIN-678 006.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

PALAKAD MUNICIPALITY PALAKKAD, REP.BY THE SECRETARY-678 001.

¶11

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER MUNICIPAL OFFICE,

¶12

PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶13

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

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 9229 of 2013 (C)

¶16

A P P E N D I X

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 : COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.15.4.85 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SUB COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD B Y SRI.K.S.KRISHNADAS AND K.S.BHAGWALDS.

¶19

P2 : COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.15.4.86 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SUB COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD BY SRI.K.S.KRISHNADAS ND K.S.BHAGWALDAS.

¶20

P3 : COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.19.3.88 SUBMITTED BY K.S.BHAGWALDAS BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD.

¶21

P4 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.23.3.1988 (ORDER NO.D.DIS.3038/85/CA) PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD.

¶22

P5 : COPY OF THE DEED NO.5980/2008 OF SRO, PALAKKAD.

¶23

P6 : COPY OF THE DEED NO.7797/2008 ON THE FILE OF SRO, PALAKKAD.

¶24

P7 : COPY OF THE DEED NO.1531/2012 OF SRO, PALAKKAD.

¶25

P8 : COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DTD.12.2.2013 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD-I VILLAGE.

¶26

P9 : COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD.16.3.2013 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD-I VILLAGE.

¶27

P10: COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY COVERED IN EXTS.P7 TO P9.

¶28

P11: COPY OF THE LAY OUT SKETCH OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTIES COVERED IN EXTS.P4 TO P10.

¶29

P12: COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ON THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶30

P13: COPY OF THE GENERAL GUIDELINES (PGES 24 & 25) CONTAINED IN GO (MS)NO.210/2009/LSGD DTD.11.11.2009.

¶31

/TRUE COPY/

¶32

P.A TO JUDGE

¶33

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶34

W.P(c) No.9229 of 2013-C

¶35

Dated this the 24^th May, 2013

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P12 proceedings of the 2^nd respondent rejecting his application for permission to construct a building in his property. His application has been rejected for the reason that the property is described as paddy field in the Revenue records.

¶38

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the ground on which Ext.P12 has been issued is unsustainable. It is contended that, though the property has been described as a paddy field in the records, at present the same is remaining as a house plot or a filled up land. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate orders for setting aside Ext.P12.

¶39

Advocate T.C.Suresh Menon appears for the respondents.

¶40

Having considered the rival contentions of the contesting parties, it has to be held that Ext.P12 is unsustainable. It has been held by this Court that it is not the description of a land in the records that is decisive, but the

¶41

W.P(c) No.9229 of 2013-C 2

¶42

present state of the land. A perusal of Ext.P12 does not show that the authority has taken any steps to verify the present condition of the land. For the above reasons, Ext.P12 is set aside.

¶43

This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner afresh, after conducting an inspection of the petitioner's land, in order to verify whether the land continues to be a paddy field and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders on the application in accordance with law. Appropriate orders as indicated above shall be passed, 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.

¶44

rtr/

Abdul Haris V.H. v. Palakad Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Haris V.H. v. Palakad Municipality

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.Svijayakumar Vs Dr. Niveditha P.Haran

Baiju John Vs Jeen K. Mathew

Mohanan Vs the Pudussery Grama Panchayat

P.Krishnan Vs the Kollengode Agricultural Co-Operative Society

Purushothaman Vs Tahsildar

Ammini Karnan Vs Okkal Grama Panchayath