Disposed

V.a.John, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2023WP(C)/761/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that no prior permission from the District Geologist or other authorities is required for removal of ordinary earth under the Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2015. Writ court directed the 7th respondent to consider and grant the building permit application. Case disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the 7th respondent to consider and grant the building permit application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.

V.a.John, Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 13TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 761 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

V.A.JOHN,
AGED 85 YEARS
S/O V.L.ANTONY, VADAKKAN AMBIZHAPPILLY HOUSE,
CHITTILAPILLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680551
BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,

¶11

THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

¶12

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

¶13

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER CHITTILAPALLY VILLAGE, CHITTILAPALLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680551

¶14

5 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MINI CIVIL STATION, CHEMBOOKKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680020

¶15

6 THE ADAT GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT OFFICE, ADAT P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680551

¶16

7 SECRETARY ADAT GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT OFFICE, ADAT P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 551 SRI.APPU.P.S-GP SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 761 OF 2023

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2023

¶22

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

¶23

“(i) Issue a Writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writ, orders of directions, to call for the records leading up to Exhibits P-5 and P-7 communications issued by the 7^th respondent and to quash the same;

¶24

(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writs, Orders or Directions the 7^th respondent to grant building permit to the petitioner as applied for as expeditiously as possible at any rate with a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of Justice;

¶25

(iii) Issue a writ to declare that the stand of the 7^th respondent as reflected Exhibits P-5 and P-7 communications is per-se illegal, irregular and arbitrary. ”

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayath.

¶27

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner in possession of property having an extent of 0.2554 Hectares of land in Re-Sy.No.75/4 of Chittilappally Village in Thrissur Taluk of Thrissur District. It is submitted that the property is

¶28

dry land. The petitioner had submitted an application for building permit for the construction of residential house in his property.

¶29

WP(C) NO. 761 OF 2023

¶30

¶31

However, the said request made by the petitioner had been answered by Exhibit P5 communication dated 25.06.2022 stating that the engineering section of the Panchayat had found out certain defects in the application. It is stated that in the site inspection conducted, the plan involves removal of 3924.595 M3 of soil for the construction. It is stated that it was only after permissions are obtained from the concerned departments that the application can be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such permission required from any other authority and that the application submitted by

¶32

the petitioner is liable to be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Building Rules and in case there is no violation of the Building Rules, the same is liable to be granted.

¶33

The learned standing counsel submits that the building plan submitted by the petitioner involves excessive removal of soil and that the intention was only that the construction would have been completed even without removing such large quantities of soil.

¶34

Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that an application has been submitted by the petitioner for a building permit.

¶35

WP(C) NO. 761 OF 2023

¶36

¶37

There is no provision in the Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2015 for obtaining any prior permission from the Geologist or from any other authorities for the removal of ordinary earth. The application for building permit is to be considered by the local authority concerned, in accordance with law

¶38

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the refusal on the part of the respondents to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner is not supported by any material or any statutory provisions. There will, accordingly, be a direction to the 7^th respondent to take up the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit and to consider and grant the same in accordance with law. The building permit can be issued subject to legally permissible conditions as are found necessary.

¶39

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

NP

¶44

WP(C) NO. 761 OF 2023

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 761/2023

¶47

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶48

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 1781 OF 1967 OF
S.R.O,.MUNDUR DATED 18-10-1967.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED
08-02-2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE
OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING THE
APPLICATION DATED 24-02-2022.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24-02-2022
REMITTED THE NECESSARY FEE
Exhibit P 5TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25-06-
2022 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.1837/C1/TDO/2022 DATED
27-07-2022 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE
7TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.400693/BPRL01
/GPO/2022/1185(2) DATED 26-08-2022.
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15-12-2022 IN
W.P.(C) NO.37373 OF 2022.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL

V.a.John, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.a.John, v. the 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

Sheena P.B Vs the Sub Collector

T.K.Prasad Vs Ayroor Grama Panchayat

Nandakumar K.N Vs the Director of Mining and Geology

Vasu Vs State of Kerala

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

P.M. Alikunju Vs State of Kerala