Allowed

Niahsudeen J v. the Pangode Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC15 Feb 2023WP(C)/298/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a property owner, sought a building number after constructing a commercial building with a permit issued in 2014. Despite Tribunal directives and subsequent submissions complying with appraisal plans, the Panchayath rejected the application. The Court allowed the writ petition to set aside the rejection order and directed the Panchayath to reconsider the matter within one month, relyin

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed with a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and take a decision within one month.

Niahsudeen J Vs the Pangode 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 VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 26TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 298 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NIAHSUDEEN J
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O JALALUDEEN POYKAYIL VEEDU, PANGOD (PO)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695609
BY ADV C.B.BHAGYALEKSHMY

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE PANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH PANGOD PO, THIRUVANANTHAOURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECERETARY, PIN - 695609

¶10

2THE SECRETARY
PANGOD GRAMAPANCHAYATH PANGOD PO THIRUVANANTHAOURAM,
PIN - 695609

¶11

3THE STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE SECRETARY
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIATE ,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM ( IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
15.02.2023 IN I.A. NO.1/2023 )
BY ADVS.
C.B.BHAGYALEKSHMY
CR. SIVAKUMAR
G.P., SRI. RIYAL DEVASSY

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) No. 298 of 2023 2

¶14

VIJU ABRAHAM , J. =========================== WP(C) No. 298 of 2023

¶15

============================ Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2023

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

Petitioner is the owner in possession of 60 sq. meters of property comprised in Survey No. 1972/1/3/1 of Pangod village. The 1^st respondent has issued a building permit for construction of a 3 storied commercial building having a plinth area of 30.30 sq.meters of each floor on 06.11.2014. The petitioner completed the said building as per the plan approved and he approached the respondent Panchayath for issuing building number. Subsequently the respondent Panchayath issued a notice dated 17.10.2019 pointing out various violations of the building rules in the construction of the building and building number could not be allocated.

¶18

The petitioner approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions challenging Ext P2 order. The Tribunal set aside the order and directed reconsideration of the same. Thereafter the said application was again rejected by Ext P4. Pursuant to Ext P2, Ext P3 completion plan was submitted before the 2^nd respondent. Thereafter the application was again

¶19

WP(C) No. 298 of 2023 3

¶20

rejected by Ext P4. Challenging the same petitioner has approached this Court filing WP(C) No. 5578/2021 and this Court as per Ext P5 judgment directed the Panchayath to reconsider the application for regularisation submitted by the petitioner after affording him an opportunity of hearing and in strict compliance with the directions issued in the order passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter by Ext P6, the application was again rejected relying on the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules 2011.

¶21

The specific case of the petitioner is that, the application ought to have been considered in the light of the new rules in existence at the time of consideration of the application. The petitioner relies on the judgment in Asset Homes Pvt Ltd and another Vs. State of Kerala and another reported in 2011(1) KHC 276 in support of his contention.

¶22

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent Panchayath would submit that they are ready to consider the application of the petitioner in the light of the rules now in force.

¶23

Therefore the above writ petition is allowed setting aside Ext P6 order with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of being

¶24

WP(C) No. 298 of 2023 4

¶25

heard to the petitioner and take a decision in the matter, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶26

With the above said direction the writ petition is allowed.

¶27

Sd/VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

¶28

sbk/-

¶29

WP(C) No. 298 of 2023 5

¶30

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 298/2023

¶31

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF
THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. A37257/2014
DATED 06/11/2014
Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL
NO.783/2019 THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DATED
30/6/2020
Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED RELEVANT
PART OF THE BUILDING PLAN
Exhibit P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
A4/678/2021 DATED 03/02/2021
Exhibit P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NO.5578/2021 DATED 29.10.2021
Exhibit P6THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.
A4/7223/2021 DATED 21/01/2022
Exhibit7THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 06/10/2022

Niahsudeen J v. the Pangode Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niahsudeen J v. the Pangode 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

P. v. Suhas Vs the District Collector

C.Vijayan Vs Corporation of Kochi

Anandu Nirmal Vs State of Kerala

Thankappan N.V. Vs the Koratty Grama Panchayat

Sakshi, Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Adbul Aseeb Vs State of Kerala