Disposed

Najun Nazar v. Tahsildar

Kerala HC6 Nov 2019WP(C)/8696/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that it cannot adjudicate factual complaints regarding construction compliance under Article 226. The judgment directed the Project Director to consider the petitioner's representation, after hearing relevant parties, and dispose of the matter within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation, hear parties, and dispose of the matter within one month.

Najun Nazar Vs Tahsildar — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.8696 OF 2019(J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NAJUN NAZAR AGED 25 YEARS S/O. NAZAR, THAJ MANZIL, KUZHALMANNAM NO.1 VILLAGE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD - 678 702.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 TAHSILDAR

¶11

ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD - 678 541

¶12

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶13

CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001

¶14

3 PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA NO. 1187/ARUMUKHAM COLONY CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD - 678 007.

¶15

4 THE SUB REGISTRAR KUZHALMANNAM REGISTRAR OFFICE, KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 702

¶16

5 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ROAD, TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, PYARI BHAVAN, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110 001

¶17

6 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

¶18

7 THE REGIONAL MANAGER KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 001

¶19

8 MUHAMMED BASHEER.K.A CONTRACTOR, S/O.ABBAS, KOOTHUPURACKAL HOUSE, POTTA, PAZHAYNNUR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 587

¶20

WP(C).No.8696 OF 2019(J)

¶21

¶22

9 KUZHALMANNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD - 678 702

¶23

R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.C.KURIAKOSE R3 BY ADV. SMT.R.ASALATHA VARMA R3 BY ADV. SRI.B.G.BIDAN CHANDRAN R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 BY SMT.I. SHEELA DEVI, CGC R9 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.RAJEEV

¶24

SRI.M .R.SABU SRGP SMT.I. LATHA VARMA-SC-R2 SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR ASG

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

WP(C).No.8696 OF 2019(J)

¶27

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the construction being carried on by the Government in the National Highway at Kuzhalmannam area is in contravention of law and without leaving necessary open space, as is required under the applicable Rules. The petitioner also contends that no "No Objection" from the National Highway Authority has been obtained for such construction and that it has not been exempted under Rule 3C of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, which provides for exemption in certain cases. The petitioner, therefore, prays that this construction be interdicted.

¶30

The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that the allegations of the petitioner are completely untrue, since the construction being carried on is for a public purpose- to house the Sub-Registrar’s Office – and therefore, prays that this Court may not entertain this writ petition. He says that, the allegations are speculative in nature, because the National Highway Authority has not raised any objection until now and therefore, that the construction may not be interdicted.

¶31

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 9^th respondent-Panchayat submits that another person has also

¶32

WP(C).No.8696 OF 2019(J)

¶33

¶34

challenged the construction and that he has approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, which Tribunal has now interdicted the construction. He says that another writ petition has also been filed by the said person before this Court as a "public interest litigation" and that the same is still pending. He submits that he has nothing further to comment on this issue, except that as matters now stand, the construction has been interdicted by the Tribunal.

¶35

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the National Highway Authority of India submits that they have not raised any objection as regards the construction as of now, but that they are willing to consider the petitioner's complaint, namely Ext.P9, in terms of law, if this Court is so inclined. He says that as of now, the Project Director has not, in any manner, interdicted construction of the building and that prima facie, it does not appear to be in violation of any law.

¶36

When I consider the afore submissions, it is clear that the petitioner has approached the 3^rd respondent-Project Director of the National Highway Authority of India making all his objections through Ext.P8. Since all his complaints are in the factual realm, I am certain that this Court cannot, while acting

¶37

WP(C).No.8696 OF 2019(J)

¶38

¶39

under Article 226 of Constitution of India, delve into it in detail or state upon them affirmatively. I am certainly of the view that, therefore, the said representation must be considered by the Project Director in terms of law, particularly, because the petitioner's singular prayer in this writ petition is that the said representation be taken up and disposed of at the earliest.

¶40

Resultantly, I order this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the 3^rd respondent-Project Director to take up Ext.P8 representation of the petitioner and dispose it of, after hearing the petitioner, the Secretary of the Panchayat and the 1^st respondent-Tahsildar, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The said Authority will, thereafter, communicate the resultant order to all parties without any further delay.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶43

nak

¶44

WP(C).No.8696 OF 2019(J)

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR INFORMATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT AND THE REPLY DATED 22.02.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 935/2017 IN OS NO. 190/2017 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT ALATHUR DT. 31-8-2017 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 09.10.2018 IN WP(C) NO.32119/2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2019 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KUZHALMANNAM EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 23-1-2019 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 30.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8- 3-2019 BEFORE THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT DATED 22-32019. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 155-2019 SENT BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

¶49

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶50

EXHIBIT R4(A) A COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT

¶51

WP(C).No.8696 OF 2019(J)

¶52

¶53

EXHIBIT R4(B) A COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES BEARING NUMBER NHAI/PD/PALAKKAD/NH47/NOC/1238 DATED 04/10/2018 EXHIBIT R4(C) A COPY OF THE LETTER REGARDING NONPAYMENT OF COMP[ENSATION TO GOVERNMENT BUILDING EXHIBIT R4(D) A COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY NH AUTHORITIES IN WP(C) NO. 1302/2019

¶54

//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Najun Nazar v. Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Najun Nazar v. Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.P.Pradeep Vs the Koduvayur Grama Panchayat

Saneesh Kumar, Vs the Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Kamal Vs the District Collector

Hussainkutty Haji Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Madhavan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Sheeba Viswanathan Vs the State of Kerala