Allowed

Vyshak.M v. the Mannur Gramapanchayat

Kerala HC3 Feb 2023WP(C)/33/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed a communication refusing to consider a building permit application. The court directed the respondents to consider the application without insisting on the production of a development permit, noting no development had occurred on the small plot.

What did the court decide?

The communication quashing the consideration of the building permit application is set aside; the respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on the application within three weeks without insis

Vyshak.M Vs the Mannur Gramapanchayat — 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

FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 14TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 33 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VYSHAK.M AGED 32 YEARS S/O. MADHUSOODHANAN P.R, THUSHARAM HOUSE, NEELESWARAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671314

¶8

BY ADVS. JACOB SEBASTIAN K.V.WINSTON ANU JACOB DIVYA R. NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE MANNUR GRAMAPANCHAYAT MANNUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN - 678642

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY MANNUR GRAMAPANCHAYAT, MANNUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678642 BY ADVS. Dinesh Mathew J Murikan VINOD S. PILLAI(K/631/2012)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 33 OF 2023

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2023

¶17

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶18

i. Quash Exhibit-P2 Issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari.

¶19

ii. Issue a writ In the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner without insisting on a development permit to be obtained by his assignor or the petitioner.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayath.

¶21

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶22

the petitioner had purchased a plot of land having an extent of 2.29 Ares of land in Re.survey No.530/10 of Mannur Village, Palakkad Taluk. It is stated that the property lies within the area of the 1^st respondent Panchayath and that the petitioner had submitted an application for building permit for construction of a residential house in the property. It is submitted that Ext.P2 communication has been

¶23

issued on 10/11/2022 directing the petitioner to produce development permit for the development which has been carried out

¶24

WP(C) NO. 33 OF 2023

¶25

¶26

in the property. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's property has an extent of only 2.29 Ares and that no development has been carried out in the property and that the refusal to consider the application for building permit is therefore untenable. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in Nafeesa and another v Chavakkad Municipality and others [2018 (3) KLT 1] and of a Division Bench of this Court in Panjal Grama Panchayath, Thrissur and another v Aneesh.P [2022 (2) KLT 653] .

¶27

A counter affidavit has been placed on record on the behalf of the Panchayath. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayath that the subdivision of plots has been carried out by the previous owner without obtaining any development permit which is against the provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules and that notices have been issued to the said owner as well. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the petitioner is the owner of a property having only an extent of 2.29 Ares and since the building permit is sought for construction of a building in the said plot alone and admittedly no development as defined under the Kerala

¶28

WP(C) NO. 33 OF 2023

¶29

¶30

Panchayath Building Rules has been effected within the plot in question, the respondents cannot refuse to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit.

¶31

Ext.P2 communication is therefore set aside. There will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to take up the building permit application submitted by the petitioner and to consider and pass orders on the same, strictly in accordance with the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules and without insisting on the production of development permit by the petitioner. Appropriate steps shall be taken within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

ska

WP(C) NO. 33 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33/2023

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶40

Exhibit-P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2845/2022 OF SRO, PARALI DATED 30.09.2022.
Exhibit-P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 27.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.26463/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a)	True copy of the stop memo issued to the predecessor by the 1st respondent dated 09.12.2022
Exhibit R1(b)	True copy of the communication issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent dated 12.01.2023

Vyshak.M v. the Mannur Gramapanchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vyshak.M v. the Mannur Gramapanchayat

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

V.a.John, Vs the State of Kerala

Vasu Vs State of Kerala

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Rashid Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Salam.N.P. Vs State of Kerala

Geetha Vs District Collector- Thrissur