Disposed

Varghese Kurian v. Alangad Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC28 Nov 2016WP(C)/22439/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a building permit due to a disputed thodu (boundary). The court stayed the stop memo issued under Rule 18 of the KPR Rules 2011 pending the disposal of pending appeals before the Panchayat Council and directed the Council to decide the matter within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Stay on the stop memo and direction to the Panchayat Council to decide the appeal within three weeks.

Varghese Kurian Vs Alangad Grama Panchayath — Municipal and Town Planning | 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 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 22439 of 2016 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

VARGHESE KURIAN,

¶8

S/O.M.G. KURIAPPAN, 50/300 A, AMBOOKKAN HOUSE, PRASANTHI NAGAR, EDAPPILLY. P.O., COCHIN-682 024.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SMT.NIMMY JOHNSON, KUM.P.V.JAYALAKSHMY.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, NEERIKKODU. P.O., ALUVA-683 511.

¶12

2. N.K. JENSON, SECRETARY CPI (M), KARINNGAMTHURUTHU SOUTH COMMITTEE, ALANGAD-683 511.

¶13

3. P.K. MANOJ, SECRETARY, PKS ALANGAD AREA COMMITTEE, AKG BHAVAN, KONGORAPPILLY-683 518.

¶14

4. K.R.BIJU, SECRETARY, KERALA KARSHAKA SANGHAM, ALANGAD VILLAGE, NEERIKODE-683 511.

¶15

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN,

¶16

SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN, SRI.SEBIN THOMAS, SRI.VIVEK V. KANNANKERI, SMT.J.KASTHURI, SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN, SRI.U.M.HASSAN.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rs.

¶19

WP(C).No. 22439 of 2016 (D)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶22

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5167/14 DATED 29.12.2014.

¶23

P2 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED 12.03.2015.

¶24

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DATED 22.9.2015 TO THE KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY.

¶25

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CRZ CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM DATED 28.03.2016.

¶26

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.14452/2016 DATED 08.04.2016.

¶27

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH DATED 18.04.2016.

¶28

P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO MR.FELIX SILVESTER ON 18.03.2015.

¶29

P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.03.2015 ISSUED TO MR.FELIX SILVESTER.

¶30

P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.04.2015.

¶31

P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.04.2015.

¶32

P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2015.

¶33

P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO. NIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30.04.2015.

¶34

P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO. NIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30.04.2015.

¶35

P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 10.12.2014.

¶36

P15 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER RULE 18 DATED 20.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH.

¶37

P16 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 20.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH.

¶38

....2/-

¶39

WP(C).No. 22439 of 2016 (D)

¶40

P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXT.P13 AND P14 DATED 23.06.2016.

¶41

P18 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶42

P19 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH ON 30/09/2016.

¶43

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K. Vinod Chandran, J

---------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.22439 of 2016-D

¶49

¶50

Dated this the 28^th day of November, 2016

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of the building permit obtained by the petitioner as per the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as also the Coastal Zone Regulations.

¶53

The petitioner obtained ownership and possession of

¶54

40 cents of land in Re-survey Nos.116/2 and 116/1-1 of Alangad Village in Parur Taluk by Exhibit P1 title deed. The petitioner then made an application for building permit, as per Exhibit P2. The application made by the petitioner was forwarded to the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority by Exhibit P3. The said authority issued clearance by Exhibit P4 for construction of 140.75 square meters of residential house. The building permit issued by the Panchayat is seen at Exhibit P6. When the petitioner was continuing with the construction, the petitioner was issued with Exhibit P15 stop memo and Exhibit P16 order threatening cancellation of permit under

¶55

WP(C) No.22439 of 2016 - 2 -

¶56

the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 [for brevity “KPR Rules of 2011”].

¶57

Exhibits P15 and P16 were issued on the basis of an

¶58

earlier objection raised by the Panchayat against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, seen at Exhibits P7 and P8. By the time the notices were served, the petitioner was in possession and he replied by Exhibits P9 and P10. The allegation in the said notices were that there was a thodu existing in the property and the same was filled up and annexed to the petitioner's property. Exhibit P11 was the order passed by the Secretary, rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner; against which appeals are filed before the Council of the Panchayat at Exhibits P12 and P13. The petitioner relies on Exhibit P14, the report of the Village Officer to the Tahsildar, to contend that there was no thodu existing in the property.

¶59

Exhibit P15 is the stop memo and Exhibit P16 is the order issued threatening cancellation of the permit granted, under Rule 18 of the KPR Rules, 2011. The same can be proceeded with only after the disposal of the appeals by the Panchayat Council. The

¶60

WP(C) No.22439 of 2016 - 3 -

¶61

petitioner submits that the appeals are already heard by the Panchayat Council and no orders have been issued till now. In such circumstance, if the petitioner has been heard, the Panchayat Council shall decide the matter within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. It is also made clear that the Panchayat Council shall consider the issue giving due weightage to Exhibit P14 communication of the Village Officer to the Tahsildar, if necessary after getting a report from the Village Officer.

¶62

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs.

¶63

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶64

vku/-

¶65

[ true copy ]

Varghese Kurian v. Alangad Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varghese Kurian v. Alangad Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahatma Gandhi University Vs Principal, Rajagiri College of Social Sciences

S.Arumugham Vs Municipal Council Ktym,Rep: by Chairman

Geetha M. Vs the Kulukallur Grama Panchayath

Unnikrishnan Vs the Vellinezhi Grama Panchayath

Mathew James Vs Kidangoor Grama Panchayath, Kottayam

Thankamaniyamma Vs State of Kerala