Quashed

Sali v. Edathiruthy Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC8 Apr 2016WP(C)/37789/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the Panchayat's order rejecting the petitioner's application for building regularization. It held that showing land as 'nanja' in records is insufficient to deny a permit without a site inspection and directed a fresh inspection.

What did the court decide?

Order rejecting application set aside; respondent directed to conduct site inspection and reconsider application within one month.

Sali Vs Edathiruthy Grama Panchayat — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/19TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 37789 of 2015 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SALI, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.JAMES, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, EDATHIRUTHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL

¶9

SMT.R.RAJITHA

¶10

SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

EDATHIRUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, EDATHURUTHY, THRISSUR-680 703.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 37789 of 2015

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2: PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.

¶20

/TRUE COPY/

¶21

PS TO JUDGE

¶22

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶23

W.P(C).No. 37789 of 2015

¶24

Dated this the 8^th March, 2016

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Petitioner's grievance is that her application for regularization of the construction of a building in Sy.No.1771/1 of Edathiruthy Village was rejected by the respondent Panchayat stating the her property is shown as 'nanja' land in the possession certificate.

¶27

According to the petitioner, her property is lying as paramba for the past several years. There are grown up trees in the property. It is also submitted that there are buildings in the adjacent plots. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the petitioner's application is illegal and arbitrary and the respondent has passed Exhibit P1 order without conducting a site inspection.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent.

¶29

The mere fact that the property has been shown as 'nanja' in the revenue records cannot be a ground for declining building permit to the petitioner. It is clear that no site

¶30

¶31

WP(C).37789/15

¶32

inspection has been conducted by the Corporation to verify the nature of the land in question before the impugned order was issued.

¶33

Exhibit P1 order rejecting the petitioner's application for regularizing the construction is set aside. The respondent is directed to conduct a site inspection in the property, verify the nature of the land and take up and reconsider the application filed by the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶35

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶36

vgs12/3

Sali v. Edathiruthy Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sali v. Edathiruthy Grama Panchayat

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

Micro Meditex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Labour Court, Ernakulam

Tom.T.Joseph Vs Ks.E.B.

Philip Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs Kadukutty Grama Panchayat

M.K.Sukumaran Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Sunny George Vs Pazhayannur Grama Panchayath