Allowed

Sainaba v. 1. Panjal Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC16 Feb 2023WP(C)/1357/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a writ petition filed by a property owner against the Panjal Grama Panchayath. The court directed the respondents to consider the building permit application strictly per Kerala Panchayat Building Rules without insisting on the production of a development permit, within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider building permit application within one month without insisting on development permit, following Kerala Panchayat Building Rules.

Sainaba Vs 1. Panjal Grama Panchayath — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 27TH MAGHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 1357 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SAINABA
AGED 45 YEARS,
W/O. SAYED ALI AKBAR,
THOTTUMUKATH HOUSE,
KILLIMANGALAM P. O,
KILLIMANGALAM,
THRISSUR DT.
PIN - 680 591.

¶7

BY ADVS.
SHOBY K.FRANCIS
AGI SHOBY

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1PANJAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PANJAL P.O,
THRISSUR DT.,
PIN – 679 531.
2SECRETARY
PANJAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
PANJAL P. O,
THRISSUR DT.,
PIN – 679 531.
SRI. P.C SASIDHARAN - SC

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C).No.1357 OF 2023

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Dated this the 16th day of February, 2023

¶15

This writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶16

reliefs:-

¶17

“(I) Issue a Writ of certiorari and quash Exhibit P-3 notice issued by the 2^nd respondent to the extend it demands production of development permit.

¶18

(II) Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue building permit to the petitioner on the basis of the Building permit application submitted by the petitioner for the property owned by the petitioner as per Exhibit P-1 title deed, without insisting for the development permit demanded by them as per Exhibit P-3, within time limit taking into account the Dictum laid down by this Hon’ble Court in a decision reported in 2018 (3) KHC 473 [Nafeesa and Another V. Chavakkad Municipality and others] and decision of this Hon’ble court in WA No.185/2022 dated 25-32022 reported in 2022 (2) KHC -775.”

¶19

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶20

and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

¶21

respondents.

¶22

WP(C).No.1357 OF 2023

¶23

¶24

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has purchased an extent of 2.02 Ares of property situated in Survey No.52/P-2 of Panjal Village in Thalappilly Taluk in Thrissur District. It is submitted that when the petitioner submitted an application for building permit on 20.02.2021, Ext.P3 notice has been issued pointing out two defects in the application. The first defect stated is that there is a mistake in the possession certificate submitted by the petitioner with regard to the name of the Village. Further, it is stated that since the property purchased by the petitioner was a part of larger extent of land, the petitioner should produce the development permit.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the issue is covered by the decisions of this Court including the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Panjal Grama Panchayat, Thrissur

¶26

WP(C).No.1357 OF 2023

¶27

¶28

and another Vs. Aneesh. P [2022 (2) KHC 775]. It is therefore, contended that the second condition in Ext.P3 is completely unsustainable. It is contended that the petitioner has produced the corrected possession certificate as evidenced by Ext.P2 and therefore the only surviving objection is the second objection which is unsustainable in the light of the judgments of this Court.

¶29

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that Ext.P3 was dated 27.03.2021 and that if the first defect noted in Ext.P3 is cured, the building permit application will be reconsidered in the light of the judgments.

¶30

In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the respondents to take up building permit application submitted by the petitioner and to consider and pass orders on the same strictly in accordance with the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules

¶31

WP(C).No.1357 OF 2023

¶32

¶33

without insisting on the production of development

¶34

permit, within a period of one month from the date of

¶35

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶39

SPR

¶40

WP(C).No.1357 OF 2023

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED TITLE DEED
NO.1217/1/20 DATED 6-11-2020 OF SRO
CHELAKKARA FOR AN EXTENT OF 2.02 ARES
[0.0202 HR/5 CENTS] OF LAND SITUATED IN
SURVEY NO.52/P-2 OF PANJAL VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 17-09-2022 ISSUED BY
THE VILLAGE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27-03-
2021 HAVING NO.B2-1195/2021 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.
35061/2022 DATED 17-11-2022.

¶45

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

Sainaba v. 1. Panjal Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sainaba v. 1. Panjal Grama Panchayath

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

Michael K.P Vs Eloor Municipality

Maideenkutty Naha Vs State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government

Viju Vs District Geologist

Santhosh Jacob E. Vs the Thrissur Municipal Corporation

Ajikumar N Vs Malayalapuzha Grama Panchayat

M/s. Amala Industries Vs the Director of Mining and Geology Department