Quashed

Muhammd Basheer v. Edavilangu Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC19 May 2017WP(C)/8468/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged rejection of their building permit application on grounds of property classification as 'nilam'. The Court held that mere classification is insufficient justification and quashed the rejection order.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Ext.P2 order; directed Secretary to reconsider building permit application strictly in accordance with applicable statutes.

Muhammd Basheer Vs Edavilangu Grama Panchayat — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2017/29TH VAISAKHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 8468 of 2016 (G)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. MUHAMMD BASHEER, AGED 46, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, CHALINGATTU HOUSE, EDAVILANGU, KODUNGALLUR.

¶8

2. MAIMOONA BASHEER, AGED 40, W/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, CHALINGATTU HOUSE, EDAVILANGU, KODUNGALLUR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.VINOD MS.JENCY SUSAN JOSE SRI.V.SRI NATH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. EDAVILANGU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, EDAVILANGU, KODUNGALOOR, THRISSUR - 680 671.

¶12

*2. THE SECRETARY, EDAVILANGU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EDAVILANGU, KODUNGALOOR, THRISSUR - 680 671. ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED

¶13

3. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, EDAVILANGU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EDAVILANGU, KODUNGALOOR, THRISSUR - 680 671, REP. BY ITS CONVENOR.

¶14

ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.02.2017 IN IA.2684/2017.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-05-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

mbr/

¶18

WP(C).No. 8468 of 2016 (G)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1-	THE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE
	PETITIONERS DATED 20.06.2015.
P2-	THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
	DATED 25.07.2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS.

¶22

P3-	THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE	LANDED PROPERTY OF THE
	PETITIONERS AND THE B	UILDING THEREIN.

¶23

P4THE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX PAYMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE SHOP-ROOM BEARING DOOR NO.6/57 DATED 11.3.2016.

¶24

P5THE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX PAYMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE SHOP-ROOM BEARING DOOR NO.6/58 DATED 11.3.2016.

¶25

P6THE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX PAYMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE SHOP-ROOM BEARING DOOR NO.6/59 DATED 11.3.2016.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶31

W.P.(C)No.8468 of 2016

¶32

Dated this the 19^th day of May, 2017

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioners have filed this writ petition alleging that even though they made application for building permit before the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat the same was rejected citing that the property in which the petitioners propose to construct is a ‘nilam’ as per the Revenue records.

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat.

¶36

The law relating to construction on property which is included as paddy filed or nilam in the Revenue records are now pretty well settled. It does not require restatement every now and then. This Court has already declared that the process for consideration of such applications will have to be in terms of either under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order or under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and the Municipality will have to consider such applications in terms of the relevant provisions of the applicable Building Rules and the Panchayat Raj Act.

¶37

This being so, I do not think it will be justified on the part of the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to reject the

¶38

..2..

¶39

W.P.(C)No.8468/2016

¶40

application as per Ext.P2 order on the mere ground that the property on which the construction is sought to be made has been classifed as 'nilam' in the Revenue records.

¶41

I, therefore, quash Ext.P2 order and direct the 2^nd respondent Secretary to reconsider the application of the petitioners for building permit subject to all applicable and relevant provisions of the various Statutes including the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules. Reconsider the application if required taking into account the dues of Local Level Monitoring Committee which may be called for by the additional 3^rd respondent.

¶42

I clarify that I have not considered the entitlement of the petitioners for building permit on its merits and I deem it appropriate to direct the Secretary of the Panchayat to reconsider the same strictly in accordance with law and in terms of the applicable Statutes and Regulations.

¶43

The writ petition is thus ordered.

¶44

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶45

skj

Muhammd Basheer v. Edavilangu Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammd Basheer v. Edavilangu 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

Hotel Park Residency Vs State of Kerala

Hassainar K.M Vs State of Kerala

Sukumari S Vs State Bank of Travancore

Muhammed Basheer Vs Edavilangu Grama Panchayat

Sreekumar v Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Deliza Residency Vs State of Kerala