Disposed

Bijo Issac v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jul 2023WP(C)/5338/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged delayed consideration of his fresh Building Permit application for a residential building by the Village Officer of R. Grama Panchayat. Court directed the Secretary to consider the complete application and decide within one month. Petitioner stipulated that revenue records show land as Purayidam.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing the 5th respondent to consider the Ext.P7 building permit application and take a decision within one month if complete.

Bijo Issac Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5338 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BIJO ISSAC AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. T.C ISAAC RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 4/53, THALAKODUKARA VEEDU, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, EDAPPALLY P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 024.

¶8

BY ADVS. S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM) K.VIJAYAN M.SREERANGA NADHAN PRIYA SHANAVAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 030.

¶12

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN PIN 686 673.

¶13

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, RAYAMANGALAM, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PULLUVAZHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 683541.

¶14

5 THE SECRETARY RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KEEZHILLAMKURICHILACODE ROAD, RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683545.

¶15

BY ADV N.RAJESH SMT.RESHMI. K. M, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

¶17

W.P.(C) No.5338 of 2022

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C) No.5338 of 2022

¶20

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Dated this the 25^th day of July, 2023

¶23

The petitioner submitted an application for Building Permit for construction of a commercial building. As the Panchayat Authorities noted certain shortcomings in the application, the petitioner was required to make certain changes to the Building Permit application and to produce some documents. In the meanwhile, the petitioner decided to file a fresh Ext.P7 application for Building Permit to construct a residential building. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P7 Building Permit application is not being considered by the Panchayat Authorities.

¶24

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Panchayat and resisted the writ petition. It is pointed out that the petitioner had submitted an application for Building Permit for a commercial building. When certain additional requirements were intimated, the petitioner appears to have abandoned that proposal

¶25

and has submitted a fresh application for Building Permit for

¶26

W.P.(C) No.5338 of 2022

¶27

¶28

construction of a residential building as per Ext.P7. As the petitioner's land was originally recorded as Nilam , the respondents have sought certain clarifications from the Revenue Divisional Officer. Ext.P7 application will be processed and finalised soon, contends the Standing Counsel.

¶29

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel representing the 5^th respondent.

¶30

Taking into consideration the fact that Ext.P7 is a statutory application submitted by the petitioner for Building Permit, the Secretary has to consider and take appropriate decision thereon expeditiously within a reasonable time. As the counsel for the petitioner asserts that the nature of the land of the petitioner has been changed as Purayidam in Revenue records and since necessary changes have already been made in the Revenue records, the Panchayat Authorities can expeditiously dispose of his application.

¶31

W.P.(C) No.5338 of 2022

¶32

¶33

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 5^th respondent-Secretary to the Panchayat to consider the Building Permit application evidenced by Ext.P7 and take a decision thereon within a period of one month, if the Building Permit application is complete in all respects.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

ams

W.P.(C) No.5338 of 2022

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5338/2022

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶42

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 415/2010 DATED 19-02-2010 OF THE PETITIONER

¶43

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2102-2018 IN WP(C) NO. 5887/2018

¶44

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 21-08-2015

¶45

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN

¶46

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR BUILDING PERMIT

¶47

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT

¶48

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSED PLAN OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FOR PETITIONER.

¶49

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶50

Exhibit R5(a) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR BUILDING PERMIT IN THE OFFICE OF PANCHAYAT ON 12/1/2017 Exhibit R5(b) TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD, RAYAMANGALAM DATED 30/1/2017 Exhibit R5(c) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.A5260/17 DATED 1/2/2017 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER

¶51

W.P.(C) No.5338 of 2022

¶52

¶53

Exhibit R5(d) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR BUILDING PERMIT IN THE OFFICE OF THE PANCHAYAT ON 7/2/2017 Exhibit R5(e) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.A5745/17 DATED 22/4/2017 SUBMITTED TO THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA Exhibit R5(f) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION BEARING NO. A5-745/17 DATED 22/5/2017 SUBMITTED TO THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA

Bijo Issac v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijo Issac v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayasree P, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Thankamani Das, Vs P.Vishnu Raj IAS

Johny Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh v., Vs the Palakkad Municipality

O Thankachan Vs Malay Chatterjee

S.Ambika Vs Kalluvathukkal Gramapanchayath