Disposed

Brd Motors Limited v. Thrikkur Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC1 Jul 2022WP(C)/25776/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee to consider the petitioners' applications to correct data bank entries within three months. The Panchayat is directed to consider the motor capacity increase application based on that decision. The RDO is directed to consider the application for changing revenue record land nature upon receipt.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to consider data bank correction applications within 3 months. 1st respondent to consider motor capacity application thereafter. 4th respondent to consider land nature change a

Brd Motors Limited Vs Thrikkur Grama Panchayath — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

W.P.(C) NO.25776 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 BRD MOTORS LIMITED, NH BY-PASS, KONIKKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680 306.

¶8

2 BRD CAR WORLD LIMITED,

¶9

NH BY-PASS, KONIKKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680 306. BOTH REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, C.C.WILLIAM VARGHESE, S/O. CHERU, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHUNGATH HOUSE, XVIII/464, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR-680 503.

¶10

BY ADVS. T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THRIKKUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRTARY, P.O. KALLUR, THRISSUR-680 317.

¶13

2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, KRISHI OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THRIKKUR, THRISSUR-680 317.

¶14

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFIFCER, IST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003.

¶15

4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

¶16

OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION ANNEXE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR-680 125.

¶17

-2-

¶18

W.P.(C) NO.25776 OF 2019

¶19

SRI.P.G.DEVADAS R1 SRI.R.SUDHISH

¶20

R2-R4 SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

-3-

¶23

W.P.(C) NO.25776 OF 2019

¶24

P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶25

W.P. (C) No.25776 of 2019

¶26

Dated this the 1^st day of July, 2022

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

¶29

“i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider on merit Exts.P8 and P10 applications and permit the petitioners to increase the capacity of the motor installed at the premises with bearing Door Nos.1/107, 1/108 form 5 HP to 80.5 HP and to install an additional motor having 41.5 HP in the adjacent door number viz., 1/109 of Thrikkoor Village;

¶30

ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to consider on merits the applications submitted by the petitioners to correct the erroneous entries in the data bank as is evident from Ext.P12 receipts issued by this respondent.

¶31

iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 4^th respondent to consider on merits Ext.P13 taking into account Exts.P3 and P4 and pass appropriate orders after affording to the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

¶32

iv) issue such other writ, order or direction as this honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶33

-4-

¶34

W.P.(C) NO.25776 OF 2019

¶35

The 1^st petitioner holds a parcel of land comprising of 2.97 hectares (approximately 7 acres) in Survey Nos.576/2, 574, 576/1, 577/3 and 573 of Thrikkur Village in Mukundapuram Taluk in Thrissur District. The petitioners are engaged in the trade of motor vehicles and the establishment started functioning as early as in the year 2008 in the premises which has been allotted door numbers and assessed for property tax by the 1^st respondent. According to the petitioners, in the light of increased volume of trade, the petitioners wanted to increase the capacity of the motor from 5 HP to 80.5 HP in the premises bearing Door Nos.1/107 and 1/108 and to install a new motor having 41.5 HP in Door No.1/109. Applications in this regard have been submitted by the petitioners to the 1^st respondent Panchayat, who refused to consider the same stating that the description of the property in the revenue records is Nilam . According to the petitioners, there are no additional construction proposed to be carried out except the change in HP of the motor and the building was constructed at a time when the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules and the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 was not in existence. It is the submission of the petitioners that the

¶36

-5-

¶37

W.P.(C) NO.25776 OF 2019

¶38

technical objection raised by the Panchayat at this point of time viz., the description of the property in the revenue records is totally unreasonable and the same causes undue hardship and irreparable injury to the petitioners. In addition to this, the petitioners also submitted applications to correct the entries in the data bank as evident by Ext.P12 series of receipts. The petitioners also submitted Ext.P13 for correction of the revenue records. Even now, there is no action from the authorties.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader.

¶40

The counsel for the petitioners reiterated their contentions. The counsel for the Panchayat submitted that, if the entries in the data bank is changed, the Panchayat has no objection in granting permission. The Government Pleader submitted that, since Ext.P13 is pending, the same will be considered in accordance with law and thereafter, the petitioners can submit an application in the proper format to make correction in the revenue records. If that is the case, there can be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners, as evidenced by Ext.P12 series of receipts, within a

¶41

-6-

¶42

W.P.(C) NO.25776 OF 2019

¶43

time frame so that the petitioners can proceed based on that decision in accordance with law.

¶44

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶45

i) The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners as evidenced by Ext.P12 series of receipts, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶46

ii) Based on the decision of the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent Panchayat will consider the application for increasing the capacity of the meter.

¶47

iii) The petitioners are also free to submit application in the proper format before the 4^th respondent for changing the nature of the land in the revenue records.

¶48

iv) Such an application is received, the 4^th respondent will consider the same and pass approrpiate orders, in accordance with law.

¶49

v) Till final orders are passed by the 2^nd respondent as directed above, all coercive steps by the 1^st respondent Panchayat shall be deferred.

¶50

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

bpr

Sd/-

-7-

W.P.(C) NO.25776 OF 2019

¶56

APPENDIX

¶57

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶58

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE FACTORY LICENCE ISSUED TO THE IST PETITIONER BRD MOTORS LIMITED 26.11.2018.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THIS FACTORY LICENCE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BRD CAR WORLD LIMITED DATED 21.3.2016.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.5.1996.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31.3.2006.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUE BY THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS GR.2, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 15.7.2019.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE MSME REGISTRATION BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DATED 13.10.2010.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED LICENCE NO.A 30326/16-17 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 25.6.2016.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGED EXT.P8 DATED 9.7.2018.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGED EXT.P10 DATED 9.7.2018.

¶59

-8-

¶60

W.P.(C) NO.25776 OF 2019

¶61

EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR RECEIVING THE APPLICATIONS TO CORRECT EHE ERRONEOUS ENTRIES IN RESPECT TO SOME OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE DATA BANK DATED 2.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED THROUGH THE MANAGER ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RDO, IRINJALAKUDA DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIFED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE RDO, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 31.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST MSME REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE, DATED 17.6.2021.
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ENDORSEMENT MADE THEREIN DATED 16.3.2022.
EXHIBIT R1(A)	COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 08.09.2017.
EXHIBIT R1(B)	COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE CARD SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT R1(A).
EXHIBIT R1(C)	COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT R1(D)	COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 03.08.2018.
EXHIBIT R1(E)	COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, L.S.G.D. TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.10.2018.
EXHIBIT R1(F)	COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KALLUR VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 28.09.2018.

¶62

-9-

¶63

W.P.(C) NO.25776 OF 2019

¶64

EXHIBIT R1(G) COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KALLUR VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 28.09.2018. EXHIBIT R1(H) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.04.2019 GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Brd Motors Limited v. Thrikkur Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brd Motors Limited v. Thrikkur Grama Panchayath

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

Padmaja, Vs State of Kerala

Faisath Vs the State of Kerala

Secretary , Chenkal Grama Panchayat Vs Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions

Dr.K.P.Ayyappan Vs Secretary to Government

Sudev Sathian Vs Corporation of Thrissur

Sunil Kumar Vs the District Collector