Disposed

Jose v. Alagappanagar Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC7 Oct 2016WP(C)/5301/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses a writ petition challenging the denial of a building permit due to a lack of layout approval and non-conformance with Kerala Building Rules. The single-judge bench interpreted provisions regarding street width for sub-division of plots less than 0.5 hectares and directed the Government to ensure public display of relevant rules and circulars.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed; the Chief Secretary was directed to ensure the display of a specific Government Circular in Panchayat and Sub-Registrar offices within two months.

Jose Vs Alagappanagar Grama Panchayath — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/15TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

W.P(C).No.5301 of 2016 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

JOSE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O ANTONY, MELETH HOUSE, PO, KALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶10

1. ALAGAPPANAGAR GRAMAPANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALANGAPPANAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN-680 302

¶11

*** ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IMPLEADED:**

¶12

ADDL.R2.

¶13

THE CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU , VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 07.10.2016.

¶15

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN

¶16

SMT.S.ANJUSHA

¶17

SRI.B.C.MENON.

¶18

ADDL.R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-10-2016, ALONG WITH WP(C).7838/2016-D, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No.5301 of 2016 (K) -------------------------

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶23

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DT. 5/1/13 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 16/9/15

¶24

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DT. 28/9/15.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶26

EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 27.11.2013. EXT.R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE OVERSEER GRADE II DATED 28.09.2015. EXT.R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.02.2016 OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER.

¶27

VKU/[ TRUE COPY ]

¶28

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶29

-------------------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) Nos.5301 of 2016-K & 7838 of 2016-D

¶30

-------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 07th day of October, 2016

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioners are persons who have purchased small extents of land out of a total of 30 cents owned by the original owner of the property, the 2nd petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7838 of 2016, who also retained a plot for himself in the said property. The petitioners' grievance is that a building permit application filed before the Panchayat has been declined by the impugned orders, pointing out the defect of there being no lay out approval for the sub division of plots and the plan being not in consonance with the Kerala Building Rules, 2011.

¶33

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent-Panchayat is a Category II Village Panchayat and, hence, the provisions under Chapter XXI would be applicable. It is also submitted that if at all Rule 31 is looked at, the minimum width for a street is prescribed only for sub division of plots from a total extent of land in excess of 0.5 hectares and sub divided into more than 20 plots. In the present case, the sub division is made of 30 cents of land and the sub division is also to less than 20 plots.

¶34

WPs(C).5301 of 2016 & 7838 of 2016

¶35

¶36

The learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat

¶37

would point out that Chapter XXI cannot be made applicable because it speaks of single family residential buildings in Category II Village Panchayat and does not speak of sub division of lands into small extents from a large extent; upon which the lay out plan is required and the Circular, bearing No.64804/R.A1/2013/LSGD dated 27.11.2013, would be applicable, specifically sub-clause 9 of Clause-I. The learned Standing Counsel also submits that subclause (b) of Rule 31(ii) specifies that every street in the layout shall have a width of not less than 6 (six) metres and shall be motorable.

¶38

It is to be noticed that there is some anomaly insofar as Table 1-A of Rule 31(ii)(a) and sub-clause (b) of Rule 31(ii). While under Table 1-A minimum width for a street is prescribed for the sub division of plots, of varying extents, the maximum of which is 6 (six) metres, sub-clause (b) specifically provides for a width of 6 (six) metres for every street in the lay out. It is also a matter of concern that the Circular, which is referred to by the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat, has not been given the publicity it requires.

¶39

WPs(C).5301 of 2016 & 7838 of 2016

¶40

¶41

As of now, with respect to the petitioners’ grievance, the same is a sub division made out of 30 cents and there is said to be existing a pathway of 80 metres length; on the sides of which subdivided lands belonging to various persons are existing. In such circumstances, the proviso to clause (b) of Rule 30(ii) states that in case of cul-de-sac with length not exceeding 150 metres, the width shall not be less than 5 metres. If the proviso is applicable, the minimum width required is only 5 metres and if the petitioners together, provide a pathway of 5 metre width, then necessarily the application would have to be considered by the Panchayat; subject however to the petitioners satisfying the requirements in accordance with the other provisions of the Rules of 2011. The petitioners would be entitled to seek for such an approval before the Panchayat.

¶42

In the above context, “The Chief Secretary, State of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram” is suo motu impleaded as additional 2^nd respondent in W.P.(C) No.5301 of 2016. Registry is directed to carry out the impleadment. The learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the said respondent. The additional 2^nd respondent shall take steps to

¶43

WPs(C).5301 of 2016 & 7838 of 2016

¶44

¶45

direct all the Panchayats to display the Circular, bearing No.64804/R.A1/2013/LSGD dated 27.11.2013 in the notice boards of the Panchayats and also in the notice board of the Offices of the Sub Registrars in the State. The direction shall be complied with within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The learned Government Pleader shall also be issued with a copy of the judgment. The Registry shall also forward a copy of the judgment to the Chief Secretary, the additional 2^nd respondent.

¶46

The writ petition is disposed of as above. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.

¶47

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶48

vku/-

¶49

[ true copy ]

Jose v. Alagappanagar Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose v. Alagappanagar 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

Jose.O.M. Vs Village Officer

T.a.Majeed Vs Corporation of Cochin

C.V. Paul & Anr. Vs State of Kerala and Ors.

Suresh George Vs Thrikkakara Municipality

Swapna Riju Vs the State of Kerala

Suresh Babu K.R Vs Tripunithura Municipality