Disposed

Velladath Krishnan v. Secretary,Mangattidam Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC9 Sept 2015WP(C)/16348/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the Panchayath to inspect the 2nd respondent's property to verify compliance with building permit conditions before issuing an occupancy certificate or building number.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent was directed to conduct an inspection and issue the occupancy certificate and building number only after verifying compliance with conditions in Ext.P4.

Velladath Krishnan Vs Secretary,Mangattidam Grama… — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/18TH BHADRA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 16348 of 2010 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VELLADATH KRISHNAN,S/O.AMBUTTY, AGED 71 YEARS, ARTIST, THIRUMANA MOONAM PEEDIKA, MANGATTIDAM AMSOM, KURUMBUKKAL DESOM P.O.NIRMALAGIRI, THALASSERY TALUK.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

SECRETARY, MANGATTIDAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O.NIRMALAGIRI, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

VELLADATH RAGHAVAN,

¶12

S/O.AMBOOTTY, AGED 60 YEARS, PHOTOGRAPHER MANGATTIDAM AMSOM, KURUMBUKKAL DESOM, P.O.NIRMALAGIRI THALASSERY TALUK.

¶13

SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA

¶15

R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 16348 of 2010 (P)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT.12.1.09 IN WPC 36265/08

¶20

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.7.09 IN WPC 36264/08

¶21

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER CIVIL COURT ISSUED BY 2ND

¶22

RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH.

¶24

TRUE COPY

¶25

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶26

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(C).No.16348 of 2010

¶29

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9^th day of September, 2015

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

¶32

“(i) issue a writ of prohibition or such other writ or direction commanding the 1^st respondent not to assign building number and/or occupancy certificate to the building constructed by the 2^nd respondent before he constructs sufficiently strong retaining wall for the protection of the petitioner's property situating on the northern and southern side of the 2^nd respondent's property.

¶33

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to enforce the 6^th condition in Exhibit P4 building permit before assigning building number and completion certificate to the 2^nd respondent.”

¶34

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner in possession of properties adjacent to the properties of the 2^nd respondent who has excavated the land to a depth of about 20 feet for construction of a residential building without providing proper lateral support to the properties of the petitioner and therefore his properties are in danger. The

¶35

W.P.(C).No.16348 of 2010

¶36

¶37

construction of the building apparently is complete. The prayer raised by the petitioner at this stage is that no occupancy certificate should be issued to the 2^nd respondent and the building should be numbered only if the conditions contained in Ext.P4 permit are complied with in full.

¶38

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the specific condition on which Ext.P4 permit issued was that retaining wall should be constructed for the protection of the land belonging to the petitioner. Though a compound wall was built the same has since collapsed and without construction of retaining wall for the protection of the petitioner's property, the 2^nd respondent is not entitled to be issued occupancy certificate. It is clear that the construction of the retaining wall was a condition on which the building permit was issued to the 2^nd respondent.

¶39

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to conduct an inspection in the

¶40

W.P.(C).No.16348 of 2010

¶41

¶42

property of the 2^nd respondent and to verify whether the condition No.6 contained in Ext.P4 has been complied with. Numbering the building and issuance of occupancy certificate shall be done only after the 1^st respondent is satisfied that the conditions contained in Ext.P4 are complied with. Necessary action in this regard shall be taken within a period of one month from date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶43

Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶44

Velladath Krishnan v. Secretary,Mangattidam Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velladath Krishnan v. Secretary,Mangattidam Grama Panchayath

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

M/S.Aramana Bar & Restaurant Vs State of Kerala

M.D.Varghese Vs Aralam Grama Panchayath

M/S.Sri Lakshmi Electrosmelters (P)Ltd. Vs K.S.E.B.

M/S.Reliance Security Agency Vs Union of India

V.K.Asokan Vs Lakshmanan (Died) and Others

K.Ajith Vs the Aruvikkara Grama Panchayat