Dismissed

Sreeram v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Nov 2022WP(C)/23552/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition seeking demolition of an allegedly illegal house constructed by respondents on undivided property shared with the petitioner. The Court held that ownership rights must be established in the pending partition suit before the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Civil Court; Building Permit to be challenged after partition suit proceedings.

Sreeram Vs State of Kerala — 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

THURSDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 23552 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SREERAM AGED 40 YEARS S/O SIDHARDAHAN, CHINCHU BHAVAN, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE, ODANAVATTOM PO,KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691512.

¶8

BY ADVS. C.R.JAYAKUMAR NOBEL RAJU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARATALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, KOTTARAKKARA PO,KOLLAM -691506.

¶12

3 THE SECRETARY, VELIYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VELIYAM PO, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691540.

¶13

4 MOHANAN S/O NARAYANAN, 'KRISHNAPRIYA', ODANAVATTOM MURI, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE, ODANAVATTOM PO, KOLLAM-691512.

¶14

5 CHANDRIKA D/O JANAKI, NEDUNGOTTU KOCHUPUTHEN VEEDU, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE, ODANAVATTOM PO, KOLLAM-691512. BY ADV SHRI.M.R.SASITH PANICKER, SC SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN SR.GP

¶15

FOLLOWING:

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶17

¶18

WP(C) No. 23552 of 2022

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Dated this the 24^th day of November, 2022

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court seeking to direct the 3^rd respondent-Secretary to Grama Panchat to take necessary action against 4^th and 5^th respondents for illegal construction made over the undivided share of the property without the consent of the petitioner and other legal heirs and by furnishing false documents.

¶22

It is the specific case of the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5 have constructed a building over a land on which the petitioner has undivided share. No Building Permit could have been issued by the 3^rd respondent without the consent of all remaining legal heirs. To that extent, the Building Permit issued by the Panchayat authorities is illegal and unsustainable. The petitioner therefore seeks to direct the 3^rd respondent to demolish the illegally constructed house in the undivided share of the petitioner and other legal heirs of deceased Narayanan.

¶23

¶24

WP(C) No. 23552 of 2022

¶25

The Standing Counsel entered appearance and

¶26

resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the Building Permit was issued in the year 2005-'06. After construction, the building was numbered and Occupancy Certificate has also issued.

¶27

The petitioner approached the Municipal authorities under the Right to Information Act seeking copy of the Building Permit. As the documents sought for by the petitioner was of a period beyond ten years, inspite of earnest efforts, the said documents could not be traced out.

¶28

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶29

The writ petition relates to a dispute over property, between the legal heirs of late Narayanan. It is an admitted position that the legal heirs of the deceased Narayanan have initiated litigation filing a partition suit, which is pending before the

¶30

¶31

WP(C) No. 23552 of 2022

¶32

Civil Court. The right of the petitioner over that part of the property

¶33

where building has come up, is yet to be established in the civil proceedings pending. In this case, the Building Permit was issued in the year 2005, more than 15 years ago.

¶34

In the circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner has to prosecute his claim before the Civil Court. Depending upon the outcome of the civil proceedings, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Municipal authorities to redress any subsisting grievance.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

ams

WP(C) No. 23552 of 2022

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23552/2022

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶44

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER VIDES NO. 929/2022 DATED 26/05/2022 AND THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶45

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21/06/2022 ALONG WITH COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT REGISTER ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶46

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21/05/2022 LODGED BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT.

¶47

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO. N/15358/22 DATED 10/06/2022 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT.

¶48

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21/05/2022 LODGED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Sreeram v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreeram 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

Unnikrishnan Vs the Chief Town Planner

Offar P.S Vs the State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Vr. Vs State of Kerala

Adwaith., Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Sijo George Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Rajamma, Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate