Allowed

K.K.Parameswaran, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Feb 2021WP(C)/7901/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to regularize without permission an unapproved lift installed in their hotel. The Panchayat rejected the application citing the need for a No-objection Certificate from the State Highway Authority, directed at the land they abut. The Court allowed the petition, directing the Panchayat to consider the application without insisting on that specific certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Panchayat to consider the application for regularization without insisting on the No-objection Certificate of the third respondent, subject to curing other defects.

K.K.Parameswaran, Vs State of Kerala — 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 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.7901 OF 2020(K)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 K.K.PARAMESWARAN, AGED 76 YEARS S/O. KESAVAN, KOLLERITHARA HOUSE, CHUTTUPAD KARA, EDAPPILLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2 K.P. ANILKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. K.K. PARAMESWARAN, KOLLERITHARA HOUSE, CHUTTUPAD KARA, EDAPPILLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

3 K.P. ARUNKUMAR,AGED 40 YEARS S/O. K.K. PARAMESWARAN, KOLLERITHARA HOUSE, CHUTTUPAD KARA, EDAPPILLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH JACOB GEORGE SRI.M.SUKUMARAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.

¶13

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

W.P.(C) No.7901 of 2020

¶15

..2..

¶16

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL HIGHWAY (B) SECTION, KODUNGALLUR, PIN-680664.

¶17

4 THE SECRETARY, VARAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VARAPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683517.

¶18

5 THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶19

R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 BY SRI.ASHOK B.SHENOY, SC, VARAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT R5 BY M/S.M.V.KINI AND CO., SC, NHAI

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

GP. K.J.MANURAJ

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P.(C) No.7901 of 2020

¶24

..3..

¶25

W.P.(C) No.7901 of 2020

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Petitioners are running a hotel on a land abutting National Highway 66 since 2002. As there was no lift facility in the hotel, they installed a lift in the hotel building. The lift was provided without getting permission from the Panchayat. After installing the lift, the petitioners preferred an application for regularization of the installation. On the said application, the Panchayat issued Ext.P3 communication to the petitioners pointing out a few defect s in the application f or regularization. One of the defects pointed out by the Panchayat in Ext.P3 communication is that the petitioners have to obtain No-objection Certificate from the State Highway Authority for the said purpose. Ext.P3 communication has been issued to the petitioners on 10.02.2020. Later, on 27.02.2020, the Secretary of the Panchayat himself addressed a letter to the State Highway Authority namely, the third respondent requiring him to intimate wh ether No-objection Certificate of the State Highway authority is to be insisted for the purpose of considering the application for regularisation. Ext.P6 is the letter issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat in this regard to the third respondent. The third

¶28

W.P.(C) No.7901 of 2020

¶29

..4..

¶30

respondent has not responded to Ext.P6 letter and the writ petition was filed in the circumstances seeking orders quashing the direction in Ext.P3 communication compelling the petitioners to produce the No-objection Certificate of the third respondent.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat.

¶32

It is seen that a counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent in the matter stating that No Objection of the State Highway Authority is not required for the purpose of considering the application for building permit.

¶33

In the light of the said counter affidavit, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the Panchayat to consider the application submitted by the petitioners for regularization without insisting the No-objection Certificate of the third respondent. Ordered accordingly. The petitioners, however, shall cure all other defects noted in Ext.P3.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶36

ds 19.02.2021

¶37

W.P.(C) No.7901 of 2020

¶38

..5..

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT DATED 18/01/2020.

¶42

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A3-565/2020 DATED 30/01/2020.

¶43

EXHIBIT P3 HE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A3-565/2020 DATED 10/02/2020.

¶44

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION PLAN DATED NIL.

¶45

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A3-565/2020 DATED 27/02/2020.

¶46

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. A3-565/2020 DATED 27/02/2020.

¶47

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.27817/2018 DATED 07/09/2018.

¶48

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.17794/2018 DATED 26/07/2018.

¶49

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶50

EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A3565/2020 DATED 27.02.2020.

K.K.Parameswaran, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Parameswaran, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.V. Ali Mubaraq Vs the Local Level Monitoring Committee

Molly Jacob Vs Deputy Director of Panchayath

Farooq v., Vs Pandikkad Grama Panchayath

Rajasekharan Nair G., Vs G.N.Harikumar

Lissy George Vs Kunnathunad Grama Panchayat

Justus P.J., Vs Joshy E.K.