Quashed

K.Krishnan Perumbala v. Chemnad Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC17 Jan 2023WP(C)/19165/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an Ombudsman order directing a Panchayat to assign a building number and regularise unauthorized construction. The Court held the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction because statutory remedies were available under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

What did the court decide?

Order Ext.P4 passed by the Ombudsman directing the first respondent to assign U/A number and regularise construction is set aside.

K.Krishnan Perumbala Vs Chemnad Grama Panchayath — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 27TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 19165 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K. KRISHNAN PERUMBALA AGED 67 YEARS S/O. LATE RAMAN KANISAN, MEMBER OF WARD NO.3 OF CHEMANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VALIYA VEEDU, PERUMBALA P. O, VIA KALANAD, KASARAGOD - 671 317.

¶8

BY ADV R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 CHEMNAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, CHEMNAD, KASARAGOD - 671 317. 2 VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUMBALA, VILLAGE OFFICE, PERUMBALA, KASARAGOD TALUK - 671 317. 3 PERUMBALA MUHIYUDHEEN JUMA-ATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, P.ABDULLA KUNHI, PERUMBALA, KASARAGOD – 671 317.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI. M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SRI. A.ARUNKUMAR SRI. S.SHYAM KUMAR SMT. SURYA BINOY – SR. GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No.19165 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions (for short, 'the Ombudsman'). The petitioner approached the Ombudsman contending that the 3^rd respondent has made certain unauthorised constructions in spite of the stop memo issued by the 1^st respondent. As per Ext.P4 order, the Ombudsman directed the 1^st respondent to assign U/A number to the building of the 3^rd respondent by accepting fee on condition that the 3^rd respondent obtains permission from the statutory authorities regularising the construction within six months. Challenging the said order to the extent it directed the 1^st respondent to assign U/A building number to the 3^rd respondent and to

¶17

WP(C).No.19165 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

consider the application for regularisation, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶20

According to the petitioner, the Ombudsman

¶21

is not having jurisdiction to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P4 in a petition prefer red by the petitioner.

¶22

The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent has entered appearance and states that the property of the 3^rd respondent has been deleted from the data bank and that there is no prohibition whatsoever in the Panchayat considering the application for regularisation of the construction of the building.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶24

The powers and functions of the Ombudsman have been statutorily fixed under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Going by Ext.P4, it is seen

¶25

that the Ombudsman has given certain directions to

¶26

WP(C).No.19165 OF 2022

¶27

¶28

the 1^st respondent to number the building of the 3^rd respondent and for taking steps to regularise the constructions carried out by the 3^rd respondent. Such directions can be issued by the Ombudsman only if there is allegation of maladministration o r corruption or irregularity by the officers or the members of the Local Self Government Institutions. Section 271M (4) (b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act provides that the Ombudsman shall not enquire into complaint relating to any matter in respect of which remedies are available before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Since the functions and powers of the Ombudsman have been statutorily fixed, I am of the view that, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to issue an order in the nature of Ext.P4. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is set aside. It is made clear that, setting aside of Ext.P4 for want of jurisdiction will not prevent the 1^st respondent from exercising

¶29

WP(C).No.19165 OF 2022

¶30

¶31

the powers conferred by the statute with regard to the regularisation of the construction. If the petitioner or the 3^rd respondent has any further grievance in the matter, it is for them to approach the 1^st respondent for necessary orders.

¶32

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶35

SPR

¶36

WP(C).No.19165 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED EXECUTED BY P.A ABBAS IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21-08-2021.

¶41

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO NO. JC31680/22 DATED 28-02-2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶42

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN DATED 16-03-2022. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-052022 IN COMPLAINT NO.267/2022 OF HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN.

¶43

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:-

¶44

EXHIBIT R3 (a) A TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED GIFT DEED NO. 3629/1/2021 OF SRO, KASARAGOD. EXHIBIT R3 (b) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECENT BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 18.04.2022. EXHIBIT R3 (c) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶45

EXHIBIT R3 (d) A TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION DATED 21.03.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R3 (e) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 07.05.2022 SHOWING THE PAYMENT FOR OBTAINING SATELLITE IMAGE AND REPORT.

¶46

EXHIBIT R3 (f) A TRUE COPY OF THE SATELLITE REPORT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTOR KSREC.

¶47

EXHIBIT R3 (g) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.06.2022 IN WPC NO.21158/2022.

¶48

EXHIBIT R3 (h) TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE CONSTRUCTION DONE.

¶49

EXHIBIT R3 (i) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2022 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶50

WP(C).No.19165 OF 2022

¶51

¶52

EXHIBIT R3(j) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01-102022 OF THE RDO, KASARAGOD. EXHIBIT R3(k) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-122022 OF THE RDO, KASARAGOD EXHIBIT R3(l) A TRUE COPY OF THE REGULARIZATION APPLICATION SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE MUHIYUDHEEN JUMA MASJID.

K.Krishnan Perumbala v. Chemnad Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Krishnan Perumbala v. Chemnad 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

M/S. Mangalath Granites Kerala (P) Ltd. Vs Chelakkara Grama Panchayat

Sreekumaran Nair T.S. Vs the Neyyattinkara Municipality

Faizal Abdulla Vs Kalpakanchery Grama Panchayat

Vintu Thomas Vs the District Collector

Sachidhanandan.v.M Vs State of Kerala

Sajir. K Vs the District Collector