Allowed

Sumi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2022WP(C)/30045/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging the rejection of her building permit application. The Court set aside the impugned communication and directed the fourth respondent to consider the application without insisting on the submission of a development permit within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Ex.P5 set aside; 4th respondent directed to consider Ext.P3 application for building permit without insisting for development permit within three weeks.

Sumi Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 30045 OF 2021

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

SUMI
AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. ARAVINDAKSHAN,
PANDIYOTTIL HOUSE, ERAVIMANGALAM P. O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680751.
BY ADVS.
DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
K.A.ABHILASH
VINOD S. PILLAI
MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.
NAYANA VARGHESE
AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
ANSU SARA MATHEW

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶8

2THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,
KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680003.
3KAIPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYAT
MUNDUR P. O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 680541,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4THE SECRETARY
KAIPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MUNDUR P. O., THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN- 680541.
BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

W.P.(C).No.30045/2021

¶11

¶12

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶13

-------------------------------W.P.(C).No.30045 of 2021

¶14

Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2022

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶17

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P5 and to quash the same.

¶18

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the 4^th respondent to consider Exhibit P3 application for building permit dehors the production of development permit and to pass orders.

¶19

iii. Grant such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶20

(SIC)

¶21

The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application for the

¶22

building permit for the construction of house in Re.Sy.No.23/10 in Anjur Village, Kaiparambu Grama Panchayath, Thrissur District before the 3^rd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that it is not considered on the

¶23

W.P.(C).No.30045/2021

¶24

¶25

ground that the above said property is part of a plot division and hence the documents relating to plot division needs to be submitted. The above reason stated in the Ext.P5 communication is not sustainable is the case of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in the light of Exts.P8 and P9 judgments and Exts.P6 and P7 Government Orders, the building permit cannot be rejected for the non-submission of development permit. Hence this writ petition.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. I also heard the learned Government Pleader.

¶27

According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 application for building permit has to be considered by the 4^th respondent and an order has to be passed without insisting for development permit. The petitioner relies on Exts.P8 and P9 judgments. On perusing Exts.P8 and P9 judgments, I think there is some force in the argument of the petitioner. The point raised by the petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner in Exts.P8 and P9 judgments. Therefore the petitioner succeeds.

¶28

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C).No.30045/2021

¶31

Ext.P5 is set aside.

¶32

The 4^th respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 application without insisting for development permit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the application, if the application is otherwise in order.

¶33

sd/-

¶34

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C).No.30045/2021

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30045/2021

¶39

`PETITIO` `Exhibit`	`NER EXHIB` `P1`	`ITS` `TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED` `NO.1270/2014 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE,` `MUNDOOR DATED 29.03.2014.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC-TAX-RECEIPT` `ISSUED FROM THE ANJUR VILLAGE OFFICE` `DATED 06.10.2021.`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR` `BUILDING PERMIT WITH PLAN SUBMITTED BY` `THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT DATED 26.10.2021.`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE` `3RD RESPONDENT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT` `OF FEE FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED` `27.10.2021.`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY` `THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER` `DATED 24.11.2021.`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER` `NO.855246/R.B.2/2016/LSGD ISSUED BY` `THE SPECIAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF` `GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT DATED` `29.04.2017.`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE` `DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH TO THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT DATED 05.06.2017.`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)` `NO.33112/2017 PASSED BY THIS` `HONOURABLE COURT DATED 11.02.2019.`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)` `NO.9301 OF 2021 PASSED BY THIS` `HONOURABLE COURT DATED 11.10.2021.`
`RESPOND`	`ENT EXHIB`	`ITS`
`Exhibit`	`R3(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED` `27/11/2013`

Sumi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumi 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajikumar Vs Mannar Grama Panchayath

George V.D. Vs the Secretary

State Vs M/S.Kolickanam Estate

Ranjith T.Das Vs the District Collector

Shahubanath Vs Mr. Rethu T. Das

D.C Vincent Vs the Balaramapuram Grama Panchayat