Allowed

Abdul Muthaleef v. Pudunagaram Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC17 Feb 2021WP(C)/30114/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking restoration of cancelled building numbers challenged orders based on maintenance report. Court relied on prior judgment finding statutory compliance. Impugned orders set aside directing restoration of building numbers if petitioners eligible.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders Exts. P13, P14 and P15 series set aside; Secretary to Grama Panchayat directed to restore building numbers if petitioners otherwise eligible.

Abdul Muthaleef Vs Pudunagaram Grama Panchayat — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/28TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.30114 OF 2012(L)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 ABDUL MUTHALEEF, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, ALAYAR KALAM, ISSATH HOUSE, VANDITHAVALAM (P.O.), PALAKKAD.

¶8

2 AHAMED KABIR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, ALAYAR KALAM, ISSATH HOUSE, VANDITHAVALAM (P.O.), PALAKKAD.

¶9

3 KAJA HUSSAIN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, ALAYAR KALAM, ISSATH HOUSE, VANDITHAVALAM (P.O.), PALAKKAD.

¶10

(PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY POWER AGENT KAJA HUSSAIN, THE 3RD PETITIONER)

¶11

4 MUHAMMED NAZAR, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.P.A.SHARAFUDHEEN, NADARSHA HOUSE, POLICE STREET, PUDUNAGARAM (P.O.), PALAKKAD-678 503.

¶12

5 T.V.MOIDEEN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER, A.T.HOUSE, MUNNIYUR (P.O.), MALAPPURAM-676 311.

¶13

6 C.MUHAMMED KOYA, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.CHANTHKUNJUMOIDEEN, CHANTH HOUSE, MUNNIYUR (P.O.), MALAPPURAM-676 311.

¶14

7 ASSAIN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIMOIDEEN, ERAMBATHIL HOUSE, A.R.NAGAR, OLAKKARA (P.O.), MALAPPURAM. 676 306.

¶15

WP(C) No.30114/2012

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

8 VAHEEDA BEEVI, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.E.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, VAHEEDA MANZIL, A.R.NAGAR, OLAKKARA (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 676 306.

¶18

9 MUSTHAFA, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, VADAKKEPURATH HOUSE, MUNNIYUR SOUTH (P.O.), MALAPPURAM-676 311.

¶19

(PETITIONERS 5 TO 9 ARE REPRESENTED BY THE POWER AGENT SHRI.T.V.MOIDEEN, THE 5TH PETITIONER).

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶21

RESPONDENTS:

¶22

1 PUDUNAGARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PUDUNAGARAM, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶23

PALAKKAD 678 503.

¶24

2 THE SECRETARY, PUDUNAGARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PUDUNAGARAM, PALAKKAD-678 503.

¶25

3 T.S.SALUDHEEN, MINSIYA MANZIL, KOZHIKKADA, THATHAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD-678 503.

¶26

4 K.NILAVARNEESA. MINSIYA MANZIL, KOZHIKKADA, THATHAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD-678 503.

¶27

5 DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶28

6 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶29

7 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, ERUMAKKARATHERUVU, PALAKKAD-676 311.

¶30

WP(C) No.30114/2012

¶31

: 3 :

¶32

8 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶33

ADDL. 9 ABBAS THEKKETHIL, THEKKETHIL, VALLAPUZHA PIN 679 336, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (ADDL.R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.02.2021 IN I.A.NO.2/2021 IN WP(C)NO. 30114/2012)

¶34

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN R1-R2 BY ADV. SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA R3-R4 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN R3-R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.WINSTON R3-R4 BY ADV. SMT.ANU JACOB R5-R8 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN ADDL.R9 BY ADV. K.T.THOMAS

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.30114/2012

: 4 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2021

¶41

The petitioners purchased shop rooms from respondents 3 and 4. The shop rooms were granted building numbers by the 1^st respondent-Panchayat. But, subsequently, the 5^th respondent-Town Planner gave Ext.P13 report to the 8^th respondent finding that the construction of the building, though on the basis of building permit, was in violation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 and advising to require the Secretary to the Grama Panchayat to take action against the illegal construction. Based on Ext.P13, the Government issued Ext.P14 letter to the Secretary to the Grama Panchayat stating that since constructions are made violating the relevant Building Rules, the building numbers granted to the ground floor and first floor of the building in question, should be cancelled in accordance with law.

¶42

Pursuant to Ext.P14, the Secretary to the Grama Panchayat issued Exts.P15, P15(a) and P15(b) dated

¶43

WP(C) No.30114/2012

¶44

: 5 :

¶45

23.11.2012 cancelling the building Nos.4/527, 4/524, 4/525, 4/526 and 4/528. It is challenging the said Ext.P15 series orders that the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

¶46

When this writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed an interim stay of implementation of Ext.P15 series, for a period of one month. The interim order was subsequently extended from time to time.

¶47

When this writ petition came up for hearing today, the counsel on either side submitted that pursuant to the directions of this Court contained in the judgment dated 18.03.2019 in W.P.(C) No.35444/2016, the 2^nd respondent has passed Ext.R3(b) order whereby the Secretary to the Grama Panchayat has found that on verifying the records and documents as per the plans submitted, it is seen that there is sufficient parking area for the building. The Secretary to the Grama Panchayat found that the construction in question satisfies the statutory requirements also. Accordingly, the Secretary to the Grama Panchayat has held that the building

¶48

can be given building number as per Rules. In view of

¶49

WP(C) No.30114/2012

¶50

: 6 :

¶51

Ext.R3(b) order, the grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition stands redressed.

¶52

However, in view of the interim order passed in this

¶53

writ petition, the Secretary has not granted/restored the building number to the petitioners. In view of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.35444/2016 and in view of the subsequent decision taken by the Grama Panchayat, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders at Exts.P13, P14 and P15 series are liable to be set aside, enabling the Secretary to the Grama Panchayat to implement the decision taken in Ext.R3(b).

¶54

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Exts.P13, P14 and P15 series and directing the Secretary to the Grama Panchayat to restore the building numbers to the petitioners, if the petitioners are otherwise eligible.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/17.02.2021

WP(C) No.30114/2012

: 7 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶62

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.20076/I/09 DATED 28.08.2009 OF SRO, CHITTUR
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1174/I/09 DATED 18.05.2009 OF SRO, CHITTUR
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.102/IV/2010 DATED 04.08.2012 OF SRO, CHITTUR, POWER
	OF ATTORNEY ISSUED BY 1ST AND 2ND PETITIONER TO 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF LICENCE NO.A2/105/11-12 DATED 04.11.2011 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 17.04.2011.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1724/10/I DATED 31.05.2010 OF SRO, CHITTUR
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT NO.28973 DATED 19.05.2012 ISSUED TO 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 24.07.2010 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1956/10 DATED 18.06.2010.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 02.07.2010.
EXHIBIT P10(a)	TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.10.2007.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF RETURNS OF PROPERTY TAX
	SUBMITTED BY THE NILAVERNEESA DATED 28.03.2010.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.07.2011.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, PALAKKAD DSTED 03.08.2012.

¶63

WP(C) No.30114/2012

¶64

: 8 :

¶65

EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY O THE 2ND RES	F LETTER OF 8TH RESPONDENT TO PONDENT DATED 19.10.2012
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY	OF PROCEEDINGS NO.A2-5546/3/
	2012 OF 2ND	RESPONDENT DATED 23.11.2012.
EXHIBIT P15(a)	TRUE COPY	OF PROCEEDINGS NO.A2-
	5546/2/2012	OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
	23.11.2012.
EXHIBIT P15(b)	TRUE COPY 2012 OF 2ND	OF PROCEEDINGS NO.A2-5546/4/ RESPONDENT DATED 23.11.2012.

¶66

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶67

EXHIBIT R1(a)	TRUE 17.10.	COPY OF 2011 ISSUED	THE BY THE	ORDER PANCHAY	DATED ATH.
EXHIBIT R1(b)	TRUE 22.11.	COPY OF 2011 ISSUED	THE BY THE	ORDER PANCHAY	DATED ATH.
EXHIBIT R1(c)	TRUE 06.02.	COPY OF 2012 IN WP(	THE J C)18/20	UDGMENT 12	DATED
EXHIBIT R3(A)	A TRU MARCH OF THI	E COPY OF 18, 2019 S HONOURABL	THE J IN WP(C E COURT	UDGMENT )NO.3544 .	DATED 4/2016
EXHIBIT R3(B)	A TRU DATED SECOND	E COPY OF 10 JANUARY RESPONDENT	THE OR 2020	DER NO.3 ISSUED	684/19 BY THE
EXHIBIT R5(a)	A TRU THE RESPON	E COPY OF T 5TH PETIT DENT	HE COMP IONER	LAINT FI BEFORE	LED BY THIS
EXHIBIT R5(b)	A TR 03.08. RESPON	UE COPY O 2012 SUB DENT BEFORE	F THE MITTED THE 8T	REPORT BY H RESPON	DATED THIS DENT.

¶68

ncd

Abdul Muthaleef v. Pudunagaram Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Muthaleef v. Pudunagaram Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aarathi a.R., Vs State of Kerala

P.Jayagovind Vs Bijoy Prabhakaran Pulipra(Resolution Professional)

Sreedharan P.K. Vs State of Kerala

Alectrona Energy Pvt. Ltd., Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

T.D.Raveendranathan Kartha Vs N.Sujaya

T.S.Saludeen Vs Anupama