Disposed

Anass Hassan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jun 2016WP(C)/9637/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Kumbalam Grama Panchayat to consider the petitioner's revised building plan, submitted by an authorized professional, within two months, subject to conditions imposed by the Town Planner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the revised plan within two months of receipt of certified copy of judgment in accordance with law and Town Planner's conditions.

Anass Hassan Vs the State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/25TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9637 of 2016 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER: -

¶7

ANASS HASSAN, S/O. HASSAN, AGED 34 YEARS, UDAYARATH VATHAPPILLIL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O., PIN-682506, MADAVANA DESOM, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

(REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, HASSAN, S/O. IBRAHIM, AGED 63 YEARS, UDAYARATH VATHAPPILLIL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O., PIN-682506, MADAVANA DESOM, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM).

BY ADVS.SRI.R.MANOJ

SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE

RESPONDENTS: -

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

¶13

THE KUMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUMBALAM, ERNAKULAM-682506.

¶14

THE SECRETARY, KUMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUMBALAM, ERNAKULAM-682506.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD SECTION, KUMBALAM-682506.

¶16

R4 BY ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER R2&3 BY ADV. SRI.AJITH GEORGE BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANOJ P. KUNJACHAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 9637 of 2016 (D)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : -

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF HIS FATHER DATED 24-08-2007.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 03-12-2015.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECRETARY OF KUMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 08-12-2015.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, LSGD TO THE SECRETARY OF THE KUMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE KUMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 23.05.2016.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : - NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,J.

¶32

W.P (c) No. 9637 of 2016

¶33

Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioner is aggrieved by the Stop Memo issued at

¶36

Exhibit P4, by the Secretary, despite a building permit having been granted at Exhibit P2. The stop memo was issued since the fourth respondent had alerted the third respondent that the plan was not prepared by an authorized/licenced professional. On verification the allegation was found to be true and hence the stop memo was issued, is the contention of the second and third respondents. The petitioner has now filed a revised plan by an authorized/licenced professional.

¶37

The learned counsel for the Panchayat contends that the Town Planner having jurisdiction over the area has issued a communication in which there are certain conditions stipulated, insofar granting permit for building

¶38

W.P (c) No. 9637 of 2016

¶39

¶40

within the area. The petitioner would be entitled to look into the same and comply with the conditions or challenge it in appropriate proceedings. In any event, since a revised plan has been submitted, it is only proper that the Panchayat be directed to consider the revised plan in accordance with law and of course in accordance with the conditions imposed by the Town Planner. Consideration of the revised plan shall be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶41

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶42

K. VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶43

DMR/-

Anass Hassan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anass Hassan v. the 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

John Pallippurathu Vs T.K.Viswanathan Nair

Kerala State Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs the Labour Court

Muhammad Vs State of Kerala

Kristal Infra Structures Limited Vs Thrikkakara Grama Panchayath

Asuntha Mohan Vs K.Sukumaran

G.S.Ammu Vs University of Kerala