Allowed

Kuttasseri Muhammed Kunhi v. the Wandoor Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC12 Feb 2021WP(C)/27343/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of a direction issued by the Sub Collector (Respondent 3) to the Panchayat to refrain from issuing building permits. The judgment held the Sub Collector lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the Panchayat's permit-granting function. Consequently, both the Sub Collector's direction and the Panchayat Secretary's subsequent restraining order were qua

What did the court decide?

Ext.P9 and Ext.P10 orders issued by the Sub Collector and Panchayat Secretary respectively are quashed.

Kuttasseri Muhammed Kunhi Vs the Wandoor Grama Panchayath — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 23RD MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.27343 OF 2016(P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KUTTASSERI MUHAMMED KUNHI AGED 48 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED, KUTTASSERI HOUSE, PALLIKUNNU, WANDOOR P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 328

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE WANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH WANDOOR P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 328 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶11

2 THE GELOLOGIST MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT MINI CIVIL STATION,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISRICT- 676 121

¶12

3 THE SUB COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 505

¶13

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER WANDOOR VILLAGE,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 328

¶14

5 THACHUPARAMBAN UMMER

¶15

S/O ALAVI,THACHUPARAMBAN HOUSE, PALLIKUNNU, WANDOOR P.O MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 328

¶16

***(THE NAME OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF PETITIONER AS PER THE ORDER DATED 12/02/2021 IN IA NO.01/2021 IN WP(C)NO.27343/2016)**

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A R1, R5 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G

¶18

WP(C).No.27343 OF 2016(P) 2

¶19

SC. VINOD RAVINDRANATH, GP. K.J.MANURAJ

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.27343 OF 2016(P) 3

¶22

W.P.(C) No.27343 of 2016

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Petitioner obtained Ext.P1 building permit from Wandoor Grama Panchayat for constructing a building. It is stated by the petitioner that while the construction of the building was progressing, a complaint was lodged by one Ummer before the third respondent concerning the construction undertaken by the petitioner. On the said complaint, the third respondent issued Ext.P9 direction to the Secretary of the Panchayat to refrain from issuing any further building permit in respect of the land referred to therein. Pursuant to Ext.P9, the Secreta ry of the Panchayat issued Ext.P10 proceedings restraining the petitioner from carrying out any construction in the property. Ext.P9 and Ext.P10 are under challenge in the writ petition.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶26

It is seen that the petitioner has been issued Ext.P1 building permit on 27.08.2014 by the Panchayat. If the petitioner has done any illegality in the guise of constructing the building covered by Ext.P1 building permit, it is certainly open to the third respondent to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. The third respondent has nothing

¶27

WP(C).No.27343 OF 2016(P) 4

¶28

to do with the grant of building permit, and the grant of building permit is a function of the Panchayat. The third respondent cannot, therefore, interdict the Panchayat from granting any building permit to the petitioner. Ext.P9 communication issued by the third respondent is therefore, without jurisdiction and liable to be interfered with. Ext.P10 being a consequential order issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat, the same is also liable to be interfered with.

¶29

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P9 and Ext.P10 orders are quashed. It is, however, made clear that this judgment will not preclude the third respondent from initiating any action against the petitioner, if the activity undertaken by the petitioner for constructing the building covered by Ext.P1 building permit contravenes any law. It is also made clear that this judgment will not preclude the Panchayat from ensuring that the construction already completed by the petitioner and proposed by the petitioner are in accordance with law.

¶30

( SD/-) P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶31

rps

¶32

WP(C).No.27343 OF 2016(P) 5

¶33

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27343/2016

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE 8-2014	BUILDING PERMIT DATED 27-
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE 2014	CONSENT LETTER DATED 23-9-
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE 2014	CONSENT LETTER DATED 31-8-
EXHIBITBP4	TRUE COPY OF THE ENGINEER, LSGD W	REPORT OF THE ASST. NADOOR
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE	CHALAN DATED 04-09-2014
EXHIBITP6	TRUE COPY OF THE	ORDER DARED 5-7-2013
EXHIBITP7	TRUE COPY OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT RESPONDENT DATED	COMPLAINT FILED BY THE BEFORE THE FIRST 24-10-2014
EXHIBITP8	TRUE COPY OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT RESPONDENT DATED	COMPLAINT FILED BY THE BEFORE THE THRID 24-10-2014
EXHIBITP9	TRUE COPY OF THE	LETTER DATED 12-10-2015
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE	ORDER DATED 26-10-2015
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE TH	LETTER DATED 5-4-2016 IRD RESPONDENT
EXIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE	PHTOGRAPHS

Kuttasseri Muhammed Kunhi v. the Wandoor Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuttasseri Muhammed Kunhi v. the Wandoor 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

Beerankutty Haji.P.v Vs Tirur Municipality

P.K.Ramadas Vs Mrs.Beena.S

Siby Joseph Vs Kaverikutty

Meera@Ayisha Devi.T Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan M. Vs the District Collector

John.M.Sebastian, Vs Marangattupilly Grama Panchayath