Quashed

Premdas v. the Manjeri Muncipality

Kerala HC25 Feb 2016WP(C)/1462/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a writ petition, quashed the Municipal Corporation's order rejecting a building permit. The Court held the rejection was vitiated by want of application of mind as the authority merely misread the possession certificate without independent site inspection for reclamation.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 quashed; direction to Municipality to conduct site inspection and decide within one month.

Premdas Vs the Manjeri Muncipality — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/6TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 1462 of 2016 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. PREMDAS, S/O GOPI, VATTAMANNAMELUVEETTIL HOUSE, KUNNAPALLI MALAPPURAM

¶8

2. SAKEENA D/O HAMZA HAJI, NADUVILEKALATHIL THADATHILPARAMB NARUKARA, MALAPPURAM

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE MANJERI MUNCIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNCIPAL OFFICE, MANJERI, PIN-676 120.

¶12

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 120

¶13

3. VILLAGE OFFICER, MANJERI, VILLAGE OFFICE MANJERI, PIN-676 120

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VIJU THOMAS R4 BY SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA, SC, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 1462 of 2016 (G)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------

¶19

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DT. 24/7/15 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.6841/14 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 7776/14 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PEITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 31/12/15 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------

/TRUE COPY/

P. A. TO JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶25

--------------------------- W.P.(C) No.1462 of 2016

¶26

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order of rejection of application for building permit on the ground that the property is wet land going by the possession certificate produced by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the property is dry land and that other building permits have been granted in the vicinity by the Municipality.

¶29

Heard Sri.Prasad Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri.K.Shibili Naha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality.

¶30

It is clear from a perusal of Ext.P4 that the rejection was only on the ground that the property is shown as wet land in the possession certificate. Ext.P5 photographs have been produced by the petitioner to contend that the property cannot be considered to be wet land under any circumstance. However, it is for the authorities under the Act to consider the nature of the land in question and whether there was any reclamation carried out. No such exercise has preceded the order of the Municipality rejecting the Building Permit. The impugned order is therefore vitiated by absolute want of application of mind.

¶31

In the above circumstances, Ext.P4 is quashed. The

¶32

W.P.(C) No.1462 of 2016

¶33

¶34

Municipality is directed to conduct a site inspection and to verify the nature of the land and whether reclamation, if any, has been carried out in the property. If it is found that the property does not answer the definition of wet land as provided in the Act, the Municipality shall take up the application and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. Orders in this regard shall be passed by the Municipality within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶36

Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE.

¶37

Premdas v. the Manjeri Muncipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premdas v. the Manjeri Muncipality

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

The Corporate Manager, Corporate Edtn Vs State of Kerala

Daisy Varghese Vs the District Registrar

Sandhya Rani v. Vs State of Kerala

Beenachi Estate Vs Smt.T.Suseela

Viji Dias Vs State of Kerala

Azad T. Vs the Akathethara Grama Panchayath