Disposed

Vyshakh George v. Kodamthuruth Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC21 Oct 2021WP(C)/17014/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition sought a direction to issue a permanent building number without insisting on Section 27A permission. The Court disposed of the matter by directing respondents to consider the petitioner's representation (Ext.P6) in light of a specific earlier judgment. Timeline: 2 months was given for passing orders.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's written representation (Ext.P6) within two months based on the judgment in Cheranalloor Grama Panchayath vs. Joe Thattil.

Vyshakh George Vs Kodamthuruth Grama Panchayath — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 29TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 17014 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VYSHAKH GEORGE AGED 33 YEARS S/O.GEORGEKUTTY, KARIMANCHERY HOUSE, EZHUPUNNA SOUTH, ALAPPUZHA 688 537 BY ADVS. K.R.VINOD M.S.LETHA K.S.SREEREKHA

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 KODAMTHURUTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUTHIYATHODU P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN 688 533, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY 2 THE SECRETARY KODAMTHURUTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUTHIYATHODU P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN 688 533. BY ADV SABINA JAYAN

¶10

SRI. R. RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI R1& R2.

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 17014 OF 2021

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 21^st day of October, 2021

¶16

The writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the 2^nd respondent to issue a permanent building number to the building constructed by the petitioner which has presently being given a temporary number of I/257 B (UA), without insisting that the petitioner should obtain permission under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The contention of the petitioner is that the permission under Section 27A is not required since it is a construction effected on the basis of a building permit which was granted in 2015. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the construction was effected in the land which was classified as 'nilam' and included in the Data Bank and action had been initiated against the then Secretary for having issued similar permits. However, I do not think it is necessary to go in to the merit of the disputes at this stage since no decision has so far been taken on Ext.P6.

¶17

The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 on the

¶18

WP(C) NO. 17014 OF 2021

¶19

¶20

basis of the judgment of this Court in Cheranalloor Grama

¶21

Panchayath, Ernakulam and Another Vs. Joe Thattil

¶22

[2020 (5) KHC 669]. The order shall be passed within two

¶23

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

T.R.RAVI

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

sn

¶28

WP(C) NO. 17014 OF 2021

¶29

¶30

	APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17014/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1	THE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.167/2015 OF S.R.O., KUTHIYATHODU
Exhibit P2	THE COPY OF THE CORRECTION DEED NO.1715/2015 OF S.R.O., KUTHIYATHODU
Exhibit P3	THE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN
Exhibit P4	THE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 17.6.2016
Exhibit P5	THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM AND ANOTHER VS. JOE THATTIL REPORTED IN 2020 (5) KHC 669
Exhibit P6	THE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.8.2021

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶32

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Vyshakh George v. Kodamthuruth Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vyshakh George v. Kodamthuruth Grama Panchayath

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

Kalloor Electronics and Lightings Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Pmr Lighting Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Puthiyaparampil Enterprises Vs State of Kerala

Sajitha Vs T.P.Riyas

Antu Vs Naseema

P.C.Rasool, Rep. by His Power of Attorney Holder P.C.Rahees Vs M.Surendran