Disposed

Joseph Christopher, v. the Vadakkekkara Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC2 Apr 2024WP(C)/10158/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a panchayat's building permit condition requiring his compound wall to stand one foot from a drain crossing his property. Finding the panchayat had not considered his alternative construction proposals, the court quashed condition No.1 and directed the panchayat to reconsider it after hearing the petitioner, within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Condition No.1 in Ext.P4 building permit quashed; panchayat directed to reconsider with hearing within six weeks.

Joseph Christopher, Vs the Vadakkekkara Grama… — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 10158 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

JOSEPH CHRISTOPHER,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.PETER, KURYAPPILLY HOUSE, MURAVANTHURUTHU,
VADAKKEKKARA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, PIN - 683522
BY ADVS.
M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN
K.S.RAJESH

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE VADAKKEKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683522

¶9

2 THE SECRETARY, VADAKKEKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, NORTH PARAVUR , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683522

¶10

3 THE COMMITTEE OF PANCHAYATH, VADAKKEKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683522

¶11

BY ADV JEENA JOSEPH -SC

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 10158 OF 2023

¶14

..2..

¶15

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P, J.

¶16

========================

¶17

W.P.C No. 10158 of 2023

¶18

========================

¶19

Dated this the 2^nd day of April, 2024

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioner challenges condition No.1 imposed while granting Ext.P4 building permit issued by the 2nd respondent for the construction of a compound wall. As per the said condition, the construction of the compound wall has to be at a distance of 1 foot from the inner side of the culvert/drain. The petitioner claims ownership over the property through which the drain is situated.

¶22

It is also stated that the width of the drain will not be altered and the flow of water will be unhindered due to the construction of the compound wall. The petitioner is also prepared to abide by conditions Nos. 2 and 3 in Ext.P4 building permit. He asserts that the construction of the compound wall is completely inside his property, and the adjacent owners also constructed

¶23

..3..

¶24

WP(C) NO. 10158 OF 2023

¶25

the compound wall over the drain without providing any facility for cleaning the drain. The petitioner undertakes that he intends to construct the foundation by laying an 8-inch width beam horizontally with a length of 3.70 meters over the embankment abutting the road and to construct the foundation upon it thereby leaving a gap of 90 cm. It is also stated that the gap of the drain at its topside will be filled up with small slabs around 7 in number which can be easily removed for cleaning the drain whenever it is required. The petitioner had made the said suggestions in Ext.P6 before the panchayat committee on 17.03.2023. The petitioner contends that the Secretary has not independently applied his mind while granting the building permit, but was misled by the reports, of persons who did not have any role in the grant of the building permit.

¶26

The learned counsel for the panchayat filed a counter affidavit, pointing out that they have taken note of the suggestions of the Environment Protection Committee, and also the report of the Overseer, which is

¶27

..4..

¶28

WP(C) NO. 10158 OF 2023

¶29

produced as Exts.R2(b) and R2(c). It also shows their apprehension that the construction of the building permit, as sought will make it difficult to clean the drain. The panchayat has also denied the averments of the petitioner that his neighbours had also constructed the compound wall at the same place, where the petitioner is seeking permission.

¶30

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

¶31

It is seen that the petitioner’s offer made in Ext.P6 has not been considered while imposing condition No. 1 possibly because it was preferred, after the issuance of Ext.P4 building permit.

¶32

Given the facts of the case and the suggestions made by the petitioners as stated above, there will be a direction to the panchayat to take a decision on the suggestions made by the petitioner in Ext.P6 or impose appropriate conditions / undertaking from the petitioner and to reconsider condition No.1 in Ext.P4 permit. The decision on the above shall be taken

¶33

WP(C) NO. 10158 OF 2023

¶34

..5..

¶35

with notice to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing, within an outer time limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To enable the above exercise, condition No.1 in Ext.P4 is quashed, and a fresh decision shall be taken in light of the observations made above and within the time granted.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶37

Sd/MOHAMMED NIAS C.P

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

¶40

WP(C) NO. 10158 OF 2023

¶41

..6..

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10158/2023

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS :

¶44

EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT
NO.2933/2022 DT.10.10.2022 OF 0.36
ARE PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P2THE SKETCH OF 0.36 ARES OF THE
PROPERTY COVERED BY EXHIBIT P1
DOCUMENT
EXHIBIT P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.19.10.2022
EXHIBIT P4THE TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.
07.02.2023
EXHIBIT5THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS
SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE
DRAIN WITHIN THE PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONER DT. NIL
EXHIBIT P6THE TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PANCHAYATH
COMMITTEE DT.17.03.2023
EXHIBIT P7THE TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF
REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE DT.17.03.2023
EXHIBIT P8THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT
OF THE ASSET REGISTER ISSUED UNDER
RTI ACT DT.12.06.2023
EXHIBIT P9THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER
ISSUED UNDER RTI ACT BY THE
PANCHAYATH DT.12.06.2023

¶45

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS :

¶46

EXHIBIT R2 (A)A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG
WITH THE SITE PLAN DATED 28/10/2022
EXHIBIT R2 (B)A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
OVERSEER DATED 3/12/2022
EXHIBIT R2 (C)A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE OF
THE PANCHAYATH DATED 11/11/2022

¶47

// True Copy // PA To Judge

Joseph Christopher, v. the Vadakkekkara Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Christopher, v. the Vadakkekkara Grama Panchayath

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

T.Maniyan Vs Athiyannoor Grama Panchayath

Joseph P.T Vs the Secretary

The Merchant'S Chamber Socio Culture Vs Kannur Municipality

Mathew T.U., Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

New Govind Apartment Owners Association, Vs the Guruvayoor Municipality

Jayasree.K., Vs the State of Kerala