Allowed

Jacob Np v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Dec 2022WP(C)/37373/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the 5th respondent must process the petitioner's building permit application within one month. The denial was based on earth removal exceeding 10 meters and standing trees, which mandates statutory clearance. The court directed issuance of the permit with necessary conditions if eligible.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 5th respondent to process the application and issue the building permit with necessary conditions within one month.

Jacob Np Vs the 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 N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 37373 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

JACOB NP
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. N.K. PETER,
NEELAMKAVIL HOUSE,
PURANATTUKARA PO, THRISSUR, PIN - 680551
BY ADV C.R.REKHESH SHARMA

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 680050

¶9

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

¶10

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,THRISSUR. CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

¶11

4 ADAT GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF ADATT GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PURANATTUKARA P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680551

¶12

5 THE SECRETARY ADATT GRAMA PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF ADATT GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PURANATTUKARA P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680551

¶13

6 THE VIIAGE OFFICER, PURANATTUKARA VILLAGE OFFICE THRISSUR - KUTTIPURAM ROAD, PURANATTUKARA, NEAR MUTHUVARA SIVA TEMPLE, PURANATTUKARA PO. THRISSUR., PIN - 680055

¶14

7 THE GEOLOGIST, THRISSUR THE DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,

¶15

WP(C) NO.37373 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

MINI CIVIL STATION, 1ST FLOOR, CHEMBUKAVU,
THRISSUR, PIN – 680020

¶18

SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN (SC) R1 & R5
SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE -GP

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO.37373 OF 2022

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2022

¶24

The petitioner states that he is an Autorikshaw Driver and is owner of 50 Ares of land in Survey No.98/1-1 in Puranattukara Village in Thrissur District.

¶25

According to the petitioner, the land is classified as ‘Purayidam’ in Revenue records. The petitioner wanted to construct three residential houses in his property.

¶26

When the petitioner applied for Building Permit, the 4^th respondent has rejected the Building Permit application stating that removal of earth from the sides and levelling of the property is needed, protection walls are to be built on those areas. As there are trees like teak situated in the land, for cutting those trees, permissions from various departments are needed. On those grounds, the Building Permit application was rejected.

¶27

WP(C) NO.37373 OF 2022

¶28

The petitioner states that he is willing to obtain Statutory Permissions required from competent authorities. However, even to obtain such Permissions a valid Building Permit will be required.

¶29

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the 4^th respondent-Panchayat and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the land of the petitioner is not plane and it is slanted. Removal of earth to a depth of 1.50 Metres is contemplated. Therefore, the retaining walls will have to be constructed. There are standing trees like teak. Therefore, cutting and removal of trees may require No Objection Certificate from competent authorities. The petitioner proposes to remove ordinary earth for more than 10 Metres depth. This is more than what is required for construction of the residential building. It is in such circumstances that Ext.P2 communication was issued to the petitioner.

¶30

WP(C) NO.37373 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 4 and 5 and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3, 6 and 7.

¶33

The petitioner has submitted an application for Building Permit. The reason advanced by the 4^th respondent for not issuing Building Permit is that the construction contemplated by the petitioner required removal of ordinary earth for more than 10 Metres. Further reason given is that there are standing trees like teak in the land, the removal of which would require clearance from statutory authorities.

¶34

The 4^th respondent would further submit that in view of the removal of ordinary earth, retaining walls may have to be constructed. Ext.P2 does not reflect the stand of the 4^th respondent that the quantum of ordinary earth sought to be removed by the petitioner is excessive. The said finding is not based on any expert opinion. The petitioner would state that he is ready and willing to obtain statutory clearance from all

¶35

WP(C) NO.37373 OF 2022

¶36

statutory authorities for cutting and removing the trees, if warranted.

¶37

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the 5^th respondent shall process the Building Permit application and give Building Permit to the petitioner, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible. The 5^th respondent may issue Building Permit subject to such conditions as are found necessary. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of one month.

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO.37373 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37373/2022

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

Exhibit P13. THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE
PROPOSED THREE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO
BE CONSTRUCTED
Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT REJECTING THE BUILDING
PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER DATED
28.06.2022
Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE
PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
AND RDO DATED 26/7/2022
Exhibit P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE
PETITIONER TO THE RDO DATED 26/7/2022
Exhibit P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE RECEIPT

Jacob Np v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jacob Np v. the 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

All Kerala Houseboat Owners Association Vs H.Dineshan IAS

K.R Sunil Babu Vs the District Geologist

Ernakulam District Cycling Association Vs Adv. P.V Sreenijin

Lissy Varghese Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

B. Kabeer Vs K.P.Sureshkumar

T L George Vs Sandhyat