Allowed

Ejeendralekha.I.M v. Peringad Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC30 Nov 2022WP(C)/20011/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought building permit but Panchayat required Railway No Objection Certificate due to adjacent land. Petitioner claimed public road access via Panchayat. Court held it arbitrary to deny permit and directed Panchayat to process application without Railway NOC.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to process the application for Building Permit without insisting for NOC from the Railway.

Ejeendralekha.I.M Vs Peringad Grama Panchayat — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 20011 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

EJEENDRALEKHA.I.M

¶8

AGED 43 YEARS

¶9

W/O.VEERAKUMAR.P.B, INDHUBHAVABNAM, ELAMPALLOOR,
KUNDARA P.O., PERINAD VILLAGE,
KOLLAM-691501

¶10

BY ADVS.
K.SIJU
S.ABHILASH
ANJANA KANNATH
T.S.SREEKUTTY

¶11

RESPONDENTS

¶12

1 PERINGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHEMMAKKAD P.O, KOLLAM - 691603 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶13

2 THE SECRETARY, PERINAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHEMMAKKAD P.O, KOLLAM-691603

¶14

3 THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, MADURAI, TAMILNADU – 625016.

¶15

W.P(C) No.20011 of 2022

¶16

¶17

4DIVISIONAL ENGINEER,
MADURAI DIVISION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
MADURAI, TAMILNADU – 625016.

¶18

BY ADVS.
MANOJ RAMASWAMY
MANU S., ASG OF INDIA

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY

¶20

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P(C) No.20011 of 2022

¶22

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2022

¶25

The petitioner is aggrieved by the omission on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in issuing Building Permit.

¶26

The petitioner states that the petitioner holds property in Survey No.683/20-4 in Block No.14 of Perinad Village in Kollam District. The petitioner acquired 2.43 Ares of property in the year 2019. After purchasing the property, the petitioner applied for Building Permit from the 2^nd respondent. However, the 2^nd respondent informed that the petitioner has to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the Railway Authorities for issuance of Building Permit.

¶27

The petitioner states that the petitioner’s property is adjacent to a public road and it is not necessary for obtaining a

¶28

No Objection Certificate from the Railway for building construction.

¶29

W.P(C) No.20011 of 2022

¶30

¶31

The Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the land is adjacent to Railway property and in fact, the road through which the petitioner has access to her plot is also a Railway property which has been leased out to the Panchayat authorities. In that view of the matter, NOC from Railway is highly necessary.

¶32

Standing Counsel for the Railway entered appearance

¶33

and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel for the Railway submitted that the petitioner has no independent access to her plot. Therefore, the Railway cannot issue NOC for construction of the building. A person constructing a building should have independent access to the property. Now, the attempt of the petitioner is to use the Railway property as access, which cannot be permitted. It is in such circumstances that the NOC has been declined.

¶34

W.P(C) No.20011 of 2022

¶35

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned respective Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 4.

¶37

The petitioner is the title holder of 2.43 Ares of property in Perinad Village. The petitioner wants to construct a building. The petitioner has submitted application for Building Permit before the Panchayat authorities. For the reason that the petitioner’s land is adjacent to a Railway land, the Panchayat authorities have insisted for NOC. The Railway authorities took a stand that the petitioner has no independent access to the petitioner’s land/plot where the building is proposed to be constructed.

¶38

It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s plot/land is on the side of a public road which is maintained by the Panchayat authorities. It appears that the said road is owned by the Railway authorities and has been leased to the Panchayat authorities. That is the reason why the

¶39

W.P(C) No.20011 of 2022 6

¶40

Railway submits that the petitioner has no access. It is evident that the road is in existence for a long time though the land over which the road is running belongs to Railway. However, since it is a public road which is used by the general public for the last so many years, it will be arbitrary and unsustainable to deny Building Permit to the petitioner, when the petitioner has access to her land/plot through the said public road.

¶41

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that if Building Permit is denied to the petitioner to construct a residential building, the petitioner will be put to great difficulties.

¶42

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to process the application of the petitioner for Building Permit without insisting for NOC from the Railway. This order will be without prejudice to any right or claim of the Railway over their land.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶45

smm

¶46

W.P(C) No.20011 of 2022

¶47

¶48

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

`Exhibit P1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF REMITTANCE OF PROPERTY` `TAX REGARDING HOUSE NO.378/VI OF` `PERINAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN FAVOUR OF` `THE PETITIONER DATED 12.4.2021`
`Exhibit P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED` `EXTENSION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE 1 RESPONDENT DATED 6.7.2021`
`Exhibit P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 15.9.2021` `ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE` `PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED` `5.4.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4 RESPONDENT` `REFUSING TO GRANT NOC FOR CONSTRUCTION` `OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OF THE` `PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 29.4.2022` `ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING` `THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT.`
`Exhibit P6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE` `ASSET REGISTER SHOWING THE ELAMPALLOOR-` `KERALAPURAM PARALLEL ROAD`
`Exhibit P7`	`THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF` `PROJECT LIST OF PERINAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT` `FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016`
`Exhibit P8`	`THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE` `EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT FUND` `REGISTER SHOWING THE MAINTENANCE OF` `ELAMPALLOOR - KERALAPURAM PARALLEL ROAD` `FROM PLAN FUND`
`Exhibit P9`	`THE TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED` `30.11.2020 ENTERED BETWEEN THE 1` `RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT AND THE 4T` `RESPONDENT FOR THE USE OF PARALLEL ROAD` `IN BETWEEN KUNDARA AND KILIKOLLOOR` `RAILWAY STATIONS`

¶51

W.P(C) No.20011 of 2022 8

Ejeendralekha.I.M v. Peringad Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ejeendralekha.I.M v. Peringad Grama Panchayat

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

Shirley Philip Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Anitha Sujith, Vs the State of Kerala

Abraham Thomas Vs K.Harikumar

Girija Vs Tv Puram Grama Panchayath

Rahul P.U. Vs the Geologist

Abdul Salam P Vs the Geologist