Allowed

Syed Ibrahim v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jul 2015WP(C)/1800/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowing a writ petition under Article 226, the Kerala High Court permitted the petitioner to file an application for regularization of an unauthorized commercial building within one month. The panchayath is directed to consider the application within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to approach respondent panchayath with an application for regularization within one month; Panchayat to consider it within two weeks.

Syed Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2015/31ST ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 1800 of 2015 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

SYED IBRAHIM, S/O.ABDUL REHIMAN, REHMANIYA MANZIL, MUTHUKUNNI, AYILOOR P.O.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SMT.ASHA P.KURIAKOSE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. MELARCODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 303.

¶12

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVEENDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Msd.

¶15

WP(C).No. 1800 of 2015 (Y)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXT.P1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 11-05-2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, MELARCODE VILLAGE.
EXT.P2 :	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.3800/2005 DATED 05-12-2007 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P3 :	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 26-08-2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4 :	TRUE COPY OF THE NUMBER PLATE NOS.81,82,83 AND 84 SHOWN IN THE BUILDING.
EXT.P5 :	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21-05-2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6 :	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 11-10-2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7 :	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11-10-2013 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.
EXT.P8 :	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18-10-2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P9 :	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 27-06-2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN W.P.(C).NO.28730/13 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P10 :	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08-07-2014 IN W.P.(C).NO.28730/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P11 :	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24-11-2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P12 :	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24-11-2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P13 :	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24-11-2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P14 :	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24-11-2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶19

WP(C).No. 1800 of 2015 (Y)

¶20

EXT.P15 : TRUE COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT DATED 11-10-2010 IN W.P.(C).NO.21404/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 1800 of 2015

¶28

Dated this the 22^nd day of July, 2015

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent panchayath to issue ownership certificate in respect of the building constructed by the petitioner on the basis of the building permit already issued by the respondent panchayath.

¶31

The petitioner alleges that after getting assignment of building numbers, the petitioner had requested the respondent for issuing ownership certificate as early as on 24.07.2012. As neither the ownership certificate nor any reply was forthcoming, the petitioner submitted an application for further construction on 21.05.2012; and an application dated 11.10.2013 was also submitted. Thereafter, the petitioner received Ext.P8 reply from the respondent panchayath stating that though the KLU order was issued for

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 1800 of 2015

¶33

..2..

¶34

construction of a residential building, ownership certificate cannot be issued from the panchayath for a commercial building. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court with WP(C) No.28730/2013. While the writ petition was pending, another judgment of this Court was brought to the notice of the respondent panchayath, where even the RDO was directed to effect necessary change in the KLU order with regard to purpose. According to the petitioner, this is a case where no building permit was even required. Anyhow, the petitioner was constructing a residential-cum-non residential building; and the KLU order does not envisage cancelling on this ground. Under these circumstances, the panchayath was ready to consider the request of the petitioner. Thereupon, a memo dated 27.06.2014 was submitted seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition as the matter was settled out of court. Based on the memo, this Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn vide Ext.P10 judgment. Following this, the

¶35

..3..

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 1800 of 2015

¶37

panchayath was in receipt of a circular dated 18.10.2014 issued by the Department of Local Administration; and the petitioner was issued with Exts.P11, P12, P13 & P14 notices dated 24.11.2014 stating that no application has been filed for regularization of the unauthorized construction. The petitioner is further informed by the panchayath that action would be taken for demolition of the building. Hence, this writ petition.

¶38

A statement has been filed by the respondent panchayath, wherein it was contended that the petitioner had obtained permission for the conversion of his property comprised in Sy.No.582/6 of Malarcode Village for construction of a residential building as per Ext.P2, D.Dis.M.3800/05 dated 05.12.2007 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad. According to them, the petitioner had obtained permission only for the construction of residential building as per Ext.P2; and on the strength of the said order, the petitioner constructed a commercial building without obtaining necessary

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 1800 of 2015

¶40

..4..

¶41

permission either as per the KLU Order, 2967 or the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is further stated that the petitioner's commercial building was temporarily numbered as unauthorized as per Ext.P4; and when the petitioner applied for permanent building number to his commercial buildings, the 2^nd respondent has issued Exts.P11 to P14 notices. They have taken the stand that they cannot give permanent building number to the unauthorized construction unless the same is as per law.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent panchayath and the learned Government Pleader.

¶43

Admittedly, the petitioner has constructed a commercial building and a provisional number was given by the respondent panchayath. The stand now taken by the respondent panchayath is that permanent number cannot be allotted to the unauthorized construction unless it is regularized.

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 1800 of 2015

¶45

..5..

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to approach the respondent panchayath with an application for regularization.

¶47

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the respondent panchayath with an application for regularization within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the event of filing such an application, the same shall be considered by the respondent panchayath within a period of two weeks thereafter. Needless to say, if the building is regularized at the request of the petitioner, the respondent panchayath shall number the building and issue ownership certificate to the petitioner as requested.

¶48

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶49

bka/-

Syed Ibrahim v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Ibrahim v. State of Kerala

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

K.O.Paul Vs Kaiparamba Grama Panchayath

V.P.Philipose Vs Mallapuzhasserry Grama Panchayath

Aminu Vs the Secretary, Punnayurkulam Grama Panchayath

Thomas Joseph Vs Jancy Sabu

Jose P.T. Vs State of Kerala

Reji Stephen Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer