Partly allowed

Binil M.K. v. the Rayamangalam Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC5 Dec 2022WP(C)/23157/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Tahsildar to survey adjacent land identified by PWD authorities as a road. Relying on the survey report showing no intervening properties, the Court held the 2nd respondent must consider the building permit application without insisting on PWD permission, setting aside the rejection letter.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the building permit application within one month without insisting on PWD NOC; Ext.P5 set aside.

Binil M.K. Vs the Rayamangalam Grama Panchayat — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 23157 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 BINIL M.K. AGED 34 YEARS S/O. LATE. M.P. KUNJU, MUKKANAMCHERRY HOUSE, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., VARIKAD, ERNAKULAM - 683556.

¶8

2 BASIL M.K., AGED 37 YEARS S/O. LATE. M.P. KUNJU, MUKKANAMCHERRY HOUSE, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., VARIKAD, ERNAKULAM - 683556.

¶9

BY ADVS. GEORGE SEBASTIAN ARUN LUCKOSE ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KURUPPAMPADY - 683545.

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY, RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KURUPPAMPADY - 683545.

¶13

3 THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD, POOPPANI ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR - 683543.

¶14

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, PULLUVAZHY, ERNAKULAM - 683541.

¶15

5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS) THOTTUMKALPEEDIKA, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686661.

¶16

W.P(C) No.23157 of 2022 2

¶17

6 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS SUB DIVISION), PERUMBAVOOR - 683542.

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAJESH, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA. SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE GOVERNMENT PLEADER.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P(C) No.23157 of 2022

¶21

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2022

¶24

The petitioners, who are siblings, have approached this Court seeking for issuance of Building Permit in the property owned by them for construction of a commercial building.

¶25

The 1^st petitioner is the owner of an extent of 7.17 Ares of immovable property which comprises of 2.57 Ares in Re-Survey No.357/3-1-7 and 4.60 Ares in Re-Survey No.357/32-2 and the 2^nd petitioner is the owner of an extent of 7.17 Ares of immovable property comprised in Re-Survey No.357/3-2-2-2 of Rayamangalam Village in Kunnathunad Taluk in Ernakulam District.

¶26

The petitioners state that they applied for Building Permit for construction of a commercial building in the land. The petitioners were served with Ext.P5 letter of the 2^nd respondent. In Ext.P5, it was stated that the western boundary of the petitioners' property is shown as PWD road

¶27

W.P(C) No.23157 of 2022

¶28

¶29

and the said portion is about 15 metres away from the PWD

¶30

road. If the said property is PWD property which is not a part of the road, access to the proposed building will not be available and a clarification has to be obtained from the PWD authorities as to whether the said portion can be considered as PWD road. In such circumstances that the petitioners approached this Court.

¶31

When this writ petition came up for admission, this Court on 17.10.2022 directed the Tahsildar to conduct a survey and file a report as to whether the land in question in Re-survey No.355 of Rayamangalam Village adjoining the petitioners' property is a part of the road margin or not.

¶32

The Tahsildar has filed a report stating that between Survey No.355 Government Puramboke Road and the petitioners' property, there are no other properties.

¶33

In view of the said fact, this Court holds that the 2^nd respondent-Secretary has to consider the Building Permit application in accordance with law without insisting for any

¶34

W.P(C) No.23157 of 2022

¶35

¶36

NOC or permission from the PWD authorities. It is made clear that this judgment is delivered only for the purpose of consideration of the application for Building Permit of the petitioners. The Building Permit application shall be considered and orders shall be passed within a period of one month. Ext.P5 is set aside.

¶37

The writ petition is disposed as above.

¶38

Sd/N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶39

sss

¶40

W.P(C) No.23157 of 2022

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23157/2022

¶43

PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT

¶44

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF DATED 5.4.2022 1ST PETITIONER.	THE ISSU	LAND TAX RECEIPT ED INFAVOUR OF THE
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF DATED 5.4.2022 2ND PETITIONER.	THE ISSU	LAND TAX RECEIPT ED INFAVOUR OF THE
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF 8.3.2022 BEARIN BY THE 2ND RESP	THE G NO ONDE	COMMUNICATION DATED . A4-1275/22 ISSUED NT.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF 28.4.2022 BEARI BY THE 2ND RESP	THE NG N ONDE	COMMUNICATION DATED O. A4-1275/22 ISSUED NT.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF 9.5.2022 ISSUED	THE BY	COMMUNICATION DATED THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF SHOWING THE RES OWNERSHIP WITH THE ROAD MENTIO	THE URVE REMA NED	BASIC TAX REGISTER Y AND NATURE OF THE RKS IN RESPECT OF IN EXT-P5.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF 16.5.2022 ISSUE RECORDS), KUNNA	THE D BY THUN	CERTIFICATE DATED THE TAHSILDAR (LAND AD.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF 13.5.2022 GIVEN TO THE 3RD RESP	THE BY ONDE	REPORT DATED THE 4TH RESPONDENT NT.

Binil M.K. v. the Rayamangalam Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binil M.K. v. the Rayamangalam Grama Panchayat

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

Crosslite Infra Private Limited Vs Pravsha Projects Private Limited

Crystal Granites Limited Vs the Joint General Manager

G.K.Granites Vs the Joint General Manager

Suresh Thaloor Vs Kerala State Election Commission

Rajeev Joseph Vs Thrissur Municipal Corporation

Remadevi Vs State of Kerala