Disposed

Betty Jose, v. Akalakunnam Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC10 Dec 2021WP(C)/18012/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner holding a building permit sought transit passes for earth extracted for foundation construction. Relying on Ramachandran case, court held no separate development permit needed. Directed respondents to issue plan and transit pass after royalty payment.

What did the court decide?

Directing 4th respondent to issue transit pass after royalty payment and production of building plan, and 1st/2nd respondents to issue building plan within three weeks.

Betty Jose, Vs Akalakunnam Grama Panchayath — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C)No.18012 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 18012 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BETTY JOSE, AGED 58 YEARS W/O.JOSE, RESIDING AT PAYYANIMANDAPATHIL HOUSE, MANALUMKAL P.O., AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SASIDARAN.N.D., S/O.DAMODHARAN, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARUVIKUZHY P.O., ANIKKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI P.M.ZIRAJ SRI IRFAN ZIRAJ SRI RIZWANA T.N

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 AKALAKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANALUNKAL P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 503, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE SECRETARY, AKALAKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANALUNKAL P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 503. 3 AKALAKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, MANALUNKAL P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 503, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 4 THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686 002. R4 BY SRI. JACOB SIMON, GP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

W.P.(C)No.18012 OF 2021

¶11

¶12

T.R.RAVI,J.

¶13

W.P.(C)No.18012 OF 2021

¶14

-------------------------------

¶15

Dated this the 10 th day of December, 2021

¶16

The petitioner has been issued with Exhibit P2 building permit for construction of a commercial building in her property. The building permit is valid till 16.1.2024. Since the property was not in a single level, the petitioner submits that the building can be constructed only after extracting and removing ordinary earth from the foundation. As per the provisions of Section 14 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, no development permit is required to extract and remove ordinary earth from the foundation of the building. However, transit permit and passes are required to transport the earth from the premises of the petitioner. For the purpose of issuance of transit passes, the petitioner has to submit building permit, development permit and possession certificate in connection with the property of the petitioner. The petitioner also has to pay sufficient royalty for the quantity of earth to be transported. The petitioner approached the 1^st respondent. By

¶17

W.P.(C)No.18012 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

Exhibit P4, the petitioner was informed that in view of the clarification issued by the Chief Town Planner, once a building permit has been issued, it can be presumed that the development permit has also been issued and no separate development permit is required. Reference is made to the decision of this Court in Ramachandran v. Vellavoor Grama Panchayat reported in [2021 (5) KLT 1] , wherein this Court considered a similar instance and held that for the purpose of obtaining transit passes for transportation of ordinary earth in a case where land development is not involved, a building plan showing the area of land for construction of the building and the quantity of ordinary earth to be extracted for construction can be obtained from the local authority and on the basis of such document the transit pass is to be issued.

¶20

The above judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case. The petitioner has already been issued with a building permit and the Panchayat has also informed him that there is no requirement for development permit.

¶21

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions.

¶22

(i) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to issue a fresh building

¶23

W.P.(C)No.18012 OF 2021

¶24

¶25

plan to the petitioner showing the area of the land for construction of the building and the quantity of earth to be extracted for the purpose of construction.

¶26

(ii) On production of the building permit and building plan issued as directed above, along with the possession certificate, the 4^th respondent shall issue necessary transit pass to the petitioner

¶27

after receiving the royalty for the earth to be transported, from the petitioner.

¶28

(iii) Respondents 1 and 2 shall issue the building plan as directed within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and the 4^th respondent shall issue necessary transit passes within two weeks from the date on which the petitioner causes production of the necessary documents as directed by this Court.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI

JUDGE

dsn

W.P.(C)No.18012 OF 2021

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18012/2021

¶36

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶37

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER DATED 12.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 17.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT PANCHAYTH COMMITTEE REGARDING THE ISSUE OF APPLICATION OF PETITIONER FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DATED 16.03.2021. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN RAMACHANADRAN VS. VELLAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH 2021 (5) KLT 1.

Betty Jose, v. Akalakunnam Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Betty Jose, v. Akalakunnam Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thiruvananthapuram Corporation Vs Lijo Abraham

Fathima Navaz Vs Thrikkakara Municipality

Mattammel Baby Vs State of Kerala

John Aruja Vs National Insurance Co.Ltd.

M.K.Prakasan Vs Sini Jojo

Ignatious K.J. Vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board