Writ petition regarding refusal of building permit by Grama Panchayat due to lack of development permit. Court directed authorities to consider petitioner's case with a hearing opportunity within two months per earlier precedents.
Directed Secretary to consider petitioner's case with hearing opportunity within two months of judgment receipt.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.1379 OF 2020(V)
PETITIONER:
RADHAKRISHNAN K.B., AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.BALAN NAIR,KALLAT HOUSE,14/523, KUTOOR,THRISSUR-680013.
BY ADVS. SRI.RAJIT SMT.V.VIJITHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 KOLAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THIROOR.P.O,M G KAVU,THRISSUR-680581.
3 THE SECRETARY, KOLAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,THIROOR.P.O, M G KAVU,THRISSUR-680581.
R2-3 BY SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, KOLAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SRI MANURAJ KJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.1379 OF 2020
-2-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in the instant case has assailed Ext.P4 communication dated 22.07.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent - Secretary, Kolazhy Grama Panchayath, refusing to grant the Building Permit as per the reason that the petitioner do not produce the development permit.
refusing or not entertaining the application for
WP(C).No.1379 OF 2020 -3-
issuance of the building permit is totally
against the dictum of the decision rendered by this Court in Nafeesa and another Vs.Chavakkad Municipality and Others [2018 (3) KLT 1] and in P.B.Babu Vs.State of Kerala and Others [W.P.(C)
No.4853 of 2016] .
Having heard the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered by the Secretary of
the Grama Panchayat, strictly as per the decision
rendered in Nafeesa and Babu (supra), after affording an opportunity of being heard the petitioner in accordance with law, but not later
WP(C).No.1379 OF 2020 -4-
than two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
This writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
vv
WP(C).No.1379 OF 2020
-5-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2454/2013 OF SRO AYYANTHOLE EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25.05.2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 11.12.2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.09.32019 IN WP(C)NO.19456/2019.
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to prove production of development permit for issuance of building permit in conformity with Nafeesa decision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nafeesa and another Vs. Chavakkad Municipality and OthersRelied on¶25
Nafeesa and another Vs.Chavakkad Municipality and Others [2018 (3) KLT 1]
P.B. Babu Vs. State of Kerala and OthersRelied on¶25
P.B.Babu Vs.State of Kerala and Others [W.P.(C) No.4853 of 2016]
Radhakrishnan K.B.
State of Kerala
Kolazhy Grama Panchayat
Secretary, Kolazhy Grama Panchayat
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
