Allowed

Muhammed Raffi v. the Edamulakkal Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC23 Aug 2023WP(C)/11215/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking allotment of a building number. Relying on a Panchayat report confirming the septic tank was installed within the rule-compliant distance, the Court ordered the Panchayat to number the building and permitted the petitioner to use the tank.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Panchayat directed to number the petitioner's building within two weeks; petitioner permitted to use the installed ready-made septic tank.

Muhammed Raffi Vs the Edamulakkal Grama Panchayath — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 31^ST DAY OF JULY 2023 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 11215 OF 2014

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MUHAMMED RAFFI S/O.HAMSA, SHALIMAR HOUSE, AYUR P O, EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM BY ADV SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

THE EDAMULAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP BY ITS SECRETARY, EDAMULAKKAL P O, AYUR, KOLLAM DIST, PIN-691016 BY ADV.SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN – STANDING COUNSEL

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

W.P. (C) No.11215 of 2014

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for

¶15

a direction to the respondent to allot the building number to the petitioner as per the Kerala Panchayath Raj Building Rules, 2011 and Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994.

¶16

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

¶17

The petitioner's father, Sri.Hamsa, was the owner of the property of 6 ½ Cents comprised in Re-Sy.No.92/6-3 of Edamulakkal Village. Consequent on the death of the father of the petitioner on 28.05.2013, the petitioner and his brother was allotted 3.25 cents each. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application to grant permission for construction of the building as per Ext.P2. On the basis of no objection certificate issued by the Panchayat, the construction of the building was completed. Pursuant to the completion of the construction, Ext.P4 complaint was filed by a neighbour of the petitioner, Sri.Hakkim, stating that there is violation of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Building Rules in

¶18

W.P. (C) No.11215 of 2014

¶19

¶20

constructing the building of the petitioner. Thereafter, Hakkim has also filed W.P.(C) No.2399/2014 against the petitioner and others. On the basis of the complaint, the petitioner was allotted U.A number (unauthorised number) by the Panchayat. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court in the above writ petition.

¶21

When this case came up on 12.06.2014, this Court passed an interim order directing the respondent to allot the number provisionally subject to use of ready made septic tank alone. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not use the permanent septic tank without obtaining further orders from this Court. This writ petition as well as W.P.(C) No.2399/2014 filed by Hakkim came up before this Court on 27.09.2023 and the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2399/2014 submitted before this Court that the petitioner is not intending to proceed with the matter and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶22

Thereafter, on 07.07.2023, the respondent Panchayat was directed to inspect the property of the petitioner and to report as to whether the ready made septic tank as undertaken by the petitioner on 12.06.2014 was

¶23

W.P. (C) No.11215 of 2014

¶24

¶25

installed or not. On the basis of the interim direction, the respondent Panchayat has filed a report dated 31.07.2022 stating that ready made septic tank was installed by leaving 50 c.ms. from the eastern wall of Hakkim's property. It is further stated in the report that as per K.P.B.R. 2019 Rule 79(4), for an individual nuclear family, the distance for constructing the septic tank from the neighbour's property has been reduced to 30 c.ms.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of Ext.R1 report filed by the respondent panchayat, the writ petition may be closed. The respondent has filed Ext.R1 report along with I.A. No.2/2023 dated 27.7.2023. I.A. is allowed. The additional documents are received on file.

¶27

On a perusal of the said report, it is seen that the Secretary of the Panchayat has stated that ready made septic tank is installed by the petitioner by leaving a distance of 50 c.ms. from the eastern wall of Hakkim's property, who is the neighbour of the petitioner. Further, as per Kerala Panchayat Building (Amendment) Rules, 2020, Rule 79(4) reads as follows: “For single family residential buildings this distance shall be reduced to 30 c.ms.”

¶28

W.P. (C) No.11215 of 2014

¶29

¶30

Since, Ext.R1 report reveals that the ready made

¶31

septic tank is installed by leaving a distance of 50 c.ms., which is within the limit prescribed by the aforesaid rules, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of, directing the Panchayat to number the building of the petitioner immediately by permitting the petitioner to use the ready made septic tank.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:

¶33

The respondent Panchayat is directed to number the building of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶34

The petitioner is also permitted to use the

¶35

ready made septic tank installed in the property.

¶36

Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE

¶37

SMF

¶38

W.P. (C) No.11215 of 2014

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11215/2014

¶41

PETITION	ER EXHI	BITS
EXHIBIT	P1:-	TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA INTIMATION IN APPENDIX A2 AS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 133 OF THE KERALA PANCHAYATH RAJ BUILDING RULES 2011 SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P2:-	TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE NO E8-756/7219/12 DTD 27/11/2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS FATHER SRI.HAMSA
EXHIBIT	P3:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD 6/2/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE RESPONDENT AND ITS RECEIPT
EXHIBIT	P4:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD 17/2/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIPOENR BEFORE THE RESPONDENT AND ITS RECEIPT
EXHIBIT	P5:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO E9-8745/13 DTD 10/2/2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT	P6:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO NO E9- 8745/13 DTD 10/2/2014 UNDER 234(W)(1)OF THE KERALA PACHAYTHG RAJ ACT 1994 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT	P7:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT P5 AND P6 DTD 18/2/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P9:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:E4.3670/14 DATED 24/06/2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶42

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT -R1 A TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 31.7.2022 OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN

Muhammed Raffi v. the Edamulakkal Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Raffi v. the Edamulakkal Grama Panchayath

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

Madhu.T Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Madeena Timber Industries Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Mary Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Narayana Rai Vs Suguna

Sabu Kuriakose Vs the Inspector of Police

Carmmel Girls Higher Secondary School, Thiruvananthapuram Vs Fasila