Disposed

Sreedharan M. v. the Ajanur Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC21 Nov 2016WP(C)/18396/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner constructed a building with a valid permit but faced violation allegations. The court directed the Panchayath to inspect the building within one month, verify specific violations, and consider regularization, with a subsequent direction to issue an occupancy certificate if regularized.

What did the court decide?

Directed Panchayath to inspect building within one month, verify violations, and consider regularization; subsequently consider occupancy certificate if regularized.

Sreedharan M. Vs the Ajanur Grama Panchayath — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/30TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 18396 of 2016 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SREEDHARAN M.,

¶8

S/O.AMBUNHI, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADHURAKODE, THIYYAR PALAM, AMBALATHARA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU,

¶10

SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE AJANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AJANUR, AJANUR P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN- 671 531.

¶13

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, KASARAGOD- 671 121.

¶14

3. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R2 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rs.

¶19

WP(C).No. 18396 of 2016 (Y)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶22

EXHIBIT-P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AJANUR VILLAGE DATED 26.09.2015.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 18.02.2005 BEARING NO.B.L.NO.523/2004-2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2008 IN APPEAL NO.414/2008 ON THE FILES OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P4: THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS (3 IN NOS.) OF THE CONSTRUCTION MADE BY THE PETITIONER BASED ON EXT.P2 PERMIT.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14/1/2015 AND BEARING NO.945/2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(C) No.18396 of 2016 - Y

¶34

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

¶35

Dated this the 21^st day of November, 2016

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The petitioner had constructed a building as per Ext.P2 permit. After completion, the petitioner was issued with a notice by the respondent Panchayath against certain illegal construction noticed, which was not sanctioned as per the plan. The petitioner was first issued with a notice by the Panchayath, alleging that there was no sanction obtained for construction.

¶38

The petitioner then produced the plan sanctioned as also the permit issued at Ext.P2. Then the Panchayath is said to have issued a final order alleging that there is violation of Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011 (for brevity, 'the Building Rules').

¶39

The petitioner took up the matter before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, in which Ext.P3 order passed. Ext.P3 appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C) No.18396 of 2016 - Y

¶42

and the impugned order of the Secretary of the Panchayath was set aside. The respondent Panchayath was given freedom to initiate fresh proceedings, without unnecessary delay. The order was issued on 30.10.2008. Till date, no further proceedings have been taken. It was in such circumstance, the petitioner filed an application for issuance of occupancy certificate. The fee receipt for the said application is produced as Ext.P5. The Panchayath contended that the application was for regularisation and not for occupancy certificate.

¶43

In that circumstance, this Court directed the Panchayath to produce the application, which was filed, for which fees was remitted as per Ext.P5. The Panchayath has produced the application across the Bar, which is found to be an application for regularisation. The learned Counsel for the Panchayath submits that the regularisation application would have been filed only since admittedly violations are noticed. It is trite that the construction can be regularised, only if there is violation from the sanctioned plan and there is no power to

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C) No.18396 of 2016 - Y

¶46

regularise, when there is a violation of the Building Rules itself.

¶47

In such circumstance, as of now, the Panchayath

¶48

would have to verify the specific violations. The Panchayath will inspect the building constructed, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and consider the application for regularisation, within one month from the date of inspection. If regularisation is granted, then necessarily, the Panchayath would also have to consider the issuance of occupancy certificate, for which the petitioner would be entitled to file a fresh application.

¶49

The writ petition would stand disposed of, without any

¶50

observations on merits.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶53

// true copy //

¶54

SB/21/11/2016

¶55

P.A to Judge

Sreedharan M. v. the Ajanur Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreedharan M. v. the Ajanur 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

P.P.Joseph Vs Mathai

Rana Sthuthi Vs Corporation of Kozhikode

Pandalam Block Panchayath Vs State of Kerala

Fr.Geroge Puthenparambil Vs Ettumanoor Grama Panchayath

Vineesh K.M. Vs Ayanchery Grama Panchayath

K.Padmanabhan Nair Vs Secretary,Corporation of Kozhikode