Disposed

Shemeela v. the Secretary, Asamannoor Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC21 Mar 2016WP(C)/5496/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash a letter treating her shop room as unauthorized renovation. The Court set aside the letter, directed provisional tax collection, and directed the Panchayat to consider the petitioner's representation on renovation details within two months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P11 set aside; Panchayat to collect property tax provisionally; Provisional building number to be allotted; Petitioner to submit representation on renovation.

Shemeela Vs the Secretary, Asamannoor Grama Panchayath — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/1ST CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5496 of 2016 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SHEMEELA,AGED 37 YEARS,D/O.MOHAMMED, MALEKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, EKKUNNAM KARA,ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY SRI.R.PARAMESWARA IYER

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SECRETARY, ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE,P.O.ASAMANNOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682337.

¶11

2. ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, P.O.ASAMANNOOR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682337.

¶12

3. N.M.SALIM,PRESIDENT,ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE,P.O.ASAMANNOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682337.

¶13

4. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF ADMINISTRATION,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.N.K.KARNIS R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANZOOR ALI.K.A.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 5496 of 2016 (J)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXT.P1:TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED. EXT.P2:TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.12.2015. EXT.P3:TRUE COPY OF THE PRIOR DOCUMENT. EXT.P4:TRUE COPY OF THE PRIOR DOCUMENT OF EXT.P3 OF THE YEAR 1982. EXT.P5:TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 23.7.2014. EXT.P6:TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 30.3.2002. EXT.P7:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 29.12.2015. EXT.P8:TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXT.P9:TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR TAX RECEIVED FOR 2014-15. EXT.P9(A):TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR TAX RECEIVED FOR 2015-16. EXT.P10:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.1.2016. EXT.P11:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.1.2016 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.2.2016.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶26

============= W.P. (C) No. 5496 of 2016

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this, the 21^st day of March, 2016

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to quash Ext.P11 and for a direction to the 1^st respondent to accept the property tax for the petitioner's shop room for the year 201516 and to issue proper receipt. By Ext.P11, Secretary of the Panchayat had intimated the petitioner that that since the building was renovated without permission, the same shall be considered only as an unauthorised construction. It is the case of the petitioner that she had not renovated the building and the building as in the present form has been purchased by her in terms of Ext.P1. The renovation has been effected by the previous building owner at a time when the Panchayat Building Rules were not made applicable to the concerned Panchayat. It is stated that only certain rain guards had been fixed to prevent rain water entering into the building.

¶31

In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that during the financial year 2012-2013, in connection

¶32

W.P(C) No.5496/16

¶33

-:2:-

¶34

with the revision of property tax, it was found that the building was demolished and reconstructed violating Section 220(b) of the

¶35

Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. That apart, petitioner has not maintained the mandatory three metre distance from the Muvattupuzha-Paniyeli PWD road.

¶36

Having regard to the fact that there is dispute between the petitioner and the Panchayat with reference to the question regarding the actual date of renovation, it is for the Panchayat to reconsider the issue after giving notice to the petitioner. It shall be open for the petitioner to adduce necessary evidence or expert opinion in regard to the aforesaid question.

¶37

In the result, I am of the view that an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to ventilate her grievance and that she should be permitted to provisionally pay the property tax in the meantime.

¶38

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶39

(i) Ext.P11 is set aside.

¶40

(ii) Panchayat shall collect the property tax of the petitioner provisionally.

¶41

(iii) That a provisional building number

¶42

W.P(C) No.5496/16

¶43

shall be allotted to the petitioner's room. (iv) That the petitioner shall submit a representation regarding the nature of renovation, if any, made and the period during which it has been made. The Panchayat shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation.

¶44

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶45

Rp21/3/2015

¶46

//True Copy//

¶47

PS to Judge

Shemeela v. the Secretary, Asamannoor Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shemeela v. the Secretary, Asamannoor 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

Ezhupunna North Coir Co.Op.Society Vs Asst.Engineer

Neerolpan Valeed Vs the Intelligence Officer (Ib)

V.M.Latha Vs the Deputy Director

K.a.Johnson Vs v.Raju

K. Surendran Vs Chithara Grama Panchayat

Naresh Kumar Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology