Allowed

Wilson v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2016WP(C)/212/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Grama Panchayath to assign a building number to the petitioners after issuing an NOC, quashing an order refusing numbering, and held that land classification discrepancies do not justify refusal once construction is complete.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the impugned order was quashed and the Secretary was directed to assign a building number.

Wilson Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/26TH MAGHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 212 of 2016 (B) --------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶6

WILSON AGED 52 YEARS S/O.ENASU, KOZHUPULLIKARAN HOUSE, PUTHUR VILLAGE THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

P J SUNIL AGED 55 YEARS S/O.JOHNY, CHIRAMAL PUTHUPALIPARAMPIL HOUSE OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, PARAVATTANY DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶8

SHON JACOB AGED 43 YEARS S/O.JACOB, PULICKAN HOUSE, OORAKAM VILLAGE PERUVANOM DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SRI.DIPU JAMES

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REP BY ITS SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶11

PUTHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PUTHUR P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT PUTHUR P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680014 REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶12

SECRETARY PUTHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE PUTHUR P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680014

¶13

THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, PUTHUR VILLAGE, PUTHUR P O THRISSUR DISTRICT 680014

¶14

THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER PUTHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUTHUR P O THRISSUR DISTRICT 680014 R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.PREMCHAND R1, 4,5 BY ADV.VIJU THOMAS, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1502-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 212 of 2016 (B)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1:-TRUE COPY OF NOC NO A3/5520/2013(226)DTD 10/6/2013 P2:-TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NO 2057/15 DTD 3/8/2015 P3:-TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NO 2517/15 DTD 26/9/2015 P4:-TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO 15075046 DTD 20/11/2015 P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE LAND IDENTIFICATION DETAILS P6:-TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO A6/7212/2015 DTD 9/12/2015 P7:-TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

--------------------------------------NIL

TRUE COPY

SKS

P.A TO JUDGE

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶25

W.P(C)NO. 212 OF 2016

¶26

Dated this the 15^th day of February,2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

There is no justification on the part of the second respondent Panchayath in refusing to number the building by Ext.P6 communication after having issued Ext.P1 No Objection Certificate to the petitioners. There is no case for the second respondent Panchayath that the petitioners have constructed in violation of Ext.P1 No Objection Certificate and the construction is complete evident by Ext.P7 photographs.

¶29

Ext.P5 extract from the data bank shows that the property in question in Sy.No.478 was converted as dry land as early as in the year 1998. The petitioners assert that there are buildings around the property pointing out to Ext.P7 series of photographs in the locality.

¶30

The mere fact that the property has been categorised as a wet land in Ext.P4 possession certificate is

¶31

¶32

W.P(C)212/2016

¶33

no ground to refuse to number the building.

¶34

I direct the third respondent Secretary of the

¶35

second respondent Panchayath to assign building number to the petitioners and initiate steps as are necessary if the construction is found in violation of Ext.P1 No Objection Certificate.

¶36

Ext.P6 order is quashed and the writ petition is

¶37

allowed. No costs.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE

¶40

sks

Wilson v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wilson 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

Susheela B. Vs Biju Prabhakar, District Collector, Trivandrum

Elikutty Philip Vs Ms. Navjyot Khosa

Somi Joseph Vs Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Shani K.A. Vs Amit Meena

Karippoor Kunhimoosa Vs K.Gireesh Kumar

Jeswin.P.Joseph Vs Jerome Thomas