Allowed

Ammini Karnan v. Okkal Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC24 May 2013WP(C)/9524/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order rejecting a building permit application solely on documentary classification of land. It held the authority must inspect the land's present physical condition. The rejection was set aside, and the authority was directed to reconsider the application within one month.

What did the court decide?

Order Ext. P3 rejected; respondents directed to consider building permit application afresh within one month.

Ammini Karnan Vs Okkal Grama Panchayath — Municipal and Town Planning | 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. 9524 of 2013 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AMMINI KARNAN, AGED 56 YEARS W/O. K.K.KARNAN, KURUVANPADAM HOUSE, OKKAL KARA CHELAMATTOM VILLAG, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, OKKAL POST PIN:683 550.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

OKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OKKAL P.O.,

¶11

PIN:683 550.

¶12

THE SECRETARY, OKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY OKKAL P.O., PIN:683 550.

¶14

RR-R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW RR1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 9524 of 2013 (M)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.658/I/03 DATED 5.2.2003 OF SRO, PERUMBAVORR.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFIFCATE NO.364/2013 DATED 11.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHELAMATTOM.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A2-2020/2013 DATED 28.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY COVERED UNDER EXT.P1 SALE DEED.

¶23

/true copy/

¶24

P.A to Judge

¶25

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶26

W.P(c) No.9524 of 2013-M

¶27

Dated this the 24^th May, 2013

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 proceedings, by which an application for building permit submitted by her has been rejected. According to Ext.P3, the petitioner's property is described as wet land (Nilam) in the documents produced by him.

¶30

Advocate Siby Mathew appears for the respondents.

¶31

It has been held by this Court in a number of decisions

¶32

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. The land 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 respondent 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

¶33

W.P(c) No.9524 of 2013-M 2

¶34

supported by the decisions of this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009(3) KLT 899] and Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2010(2) KLT 617]. The above procedure not having been adopted in the present case, the reason stated in Ext.P3 is unsustainable.

¶35

For the above reasons, Ext.P3 is set aside. The respondents are 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.

¶36

rtr/

Ammini Karnan v. Okkal Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ammini Karnan v. Okkal Grama Panchayath

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

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

Abdul Haris V.H. Vs Palakad Municipality