Anjala vs Thachampara Grama Panchayat
2021 Latest Caselaw 16913 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021/21ST SRAVANA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 34244 OF 2019


PETITIONER:

         ANJALA, AGED 42 YEARS,
         D/O. P. P. VARKEY,
         THANNIKKAL HOUSE, PALAKAYAM,
         PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

         BY ADVS.
         K.MOHANAKANNAN
         A.R.PRAVITHA
         D.S.THUSHARA
         H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)
         T.S.NEJIMUDDIN
         T.V.NEEMA


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THACHAMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
         THACHAMPARA P.O.,
         PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 593.

    2    THE SECRETARY,
         THACHAMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
         THACHAMPARA P.O.,
         PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 593.

         BY ADV. SRI.K.K.RAJEEV

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.34244/2019

                                2




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of August, 2021

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to

quash Ext.P8 and to direct the respondent Panchayat to

issue building permit to the petitioner as applied for in

Ext.P6 within a time frame.

2. The petitioner states that he is in possession of

3.75 cents of land in Palakayam Village and a residential

building was existing in the property for 20 years.

According to the petitioner, the petitioner made certain

alterations to the existing building submitting applications

for building permit and change the occupancy. However the

applications were returned by the 2 nd respondent as per

Ext.P8 holding that a PWD Road is lying in front of the

petitioner's property and therefore Section 220(b) of the

Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ought to have been WP(C) No.34244/2019

complied with by the petitioner. The petitioner challenges

Ext.P8 communication.

3. According to the petitioner, Ext.P8 is a non

speaking order and disclosed no substantial reasons for

rejecting the application of the petitioner. In the

circumstances, Ext.P8 order is liable to be quashed and the

respondents are compellable to grant occupancy certificate

and building permit to the petitioner's building.

4. The respondents appeared through Standing

Counsel, filed counter affidavit and contested the writ

petition. The respondents submitted that according to the

Building Tax Assessment Register, it is found that a

residential building bearing Nio.7/663 is issued in the year

1997 to one P.C. Joseph and the records reveal that the

building is constructed after the commencement of Kerala

Panchayat Raj Act which came into force in the year 1994.

The occupancy of the building is only for residential purpose WP(C) No.34244/2019

as per the relevant records maintained by the Panchayat.

The petitioner after purchasing the building, modified the

building without taking prior permission from the Panchayat.

As on date, the building does not satisfy the distance

criteria laid down under Section 220(b). As the petitioner's

building is in violation of Building Rules, its is liable to be

rejected.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Standing Counsel representing the

respondents.

6. It is not of any serious dispute that the building

does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 220(b)

of the Panchyat Raj Act, 1994. If the building is not in

accordance with the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, the

remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the

Panchayat authorities for regularisation of construction.

When there is violation of Building Rules, this Court cannot WP(C) No.34244/2019

direct the Panchayat to number the building or to issue

occupancy certificate.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ

petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach

the respondents for regularisation of the construction made

by the petitioner, if the petitioner is so advised. If the

petitioner submits application for regularisation within a

period of one month, the respondents shall consider such

application in accordance with law and pass appropriate

orders thereon expeditiously.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ncd/14.08.2021 WP(C) No.34244/2019

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34244/2019

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1958/1/12 OF SRO MANNARKKAD DATED 8.3.2012.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 12.11.2019 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 26.10.2018.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT ADALATH DATED 29.7.2019.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 4.10.2019.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.10.19.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 29.11.2019.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD, MANNARKKAD DIVISION.

EXHIBIT R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE SITE INSPECTION REORT FILED BY ASSISTANT ENGINEER EXHIBIT R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF ASSESSMENT REGISTER.