Petitioner challenged rejection of building construction permission. Court held authority must verify current land state, not rely solely on Possession Certificate description. Ordered inspection and fresh consideration.
Order setting aside Ext.P1 and directing second respondent to consider application afresh after land inspection within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/31ST BHADRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 13072 of 2014 (H) ----------------------------
PETITIONER:
MIRSHAD S/O MUHAMMED NAJEEB, MANDAYAURATH HOUSE MEENADATHUR P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 13072 of 2014 (H) ----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS NO.B.A.530/13 DATED 21.04.2014
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
JJ
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
K. SURENDRA MOHAN,J.
W.P(C) NO.13072 OF 2014
Dated this the 22nd September, 2014.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P1 proceedings of the second 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 a paddy field in the documents produced by the petitioner.
respondents.
2
WPC 13072/2014
contesting parties, it has to be held that Ext.P2 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 present state of the land. A perusal of Ext.P1 does not show that the authority has taken any steps to verify the present condition of the land. For the above reasons, Ext.P1 is set aside.
This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the second 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 as described in the Possession Certificate of the petitioner 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.
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge
jj /True copy/
WPC 13072/2014 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Municipal authority correctly rejected the petitioner's building construction application solely based on the Possession Certificate description of the land.
Whether the authority is duty-bound to inspect the present state of the land before rejecting an application.
Mirshad S/o Muhammed Najeeb
The Tirur Municipality
K. Surendra Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
