Kuttasseri Muhammed Kunhi vs The Wandoor Grama Panchayath
2021 Latest Caselaw 5218 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

     FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 23RD MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.27343 OF 2016(P)



PETITIONER:

               KUTTASSERI MUHAMMED KUNHI
               AGED 48 YEARS
               S/O MUHAMMED,
               KUTTASSERI HOUSE,
               PALLIKUNNU, WANDOOR P.O.
               MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 328

               BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE WANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
               WANDOOR P.O.
               MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 328
               REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

      2        THE GELOLOGIST
               MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT MINI CIVIL
               STATION,MANJERI,
               MALAPPURAM DISRICT- 676 121

      3        THE SUB COLLECTOR
               COLLECTORATE, PERINTHALMANNA,
               MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 505

      4        THE VILLAGE OFFICER
               WANDOOR VILLAGE,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 328

      5        THACHUPARAMBAN UMMER
               S/O ALAVI,THACHUPARAMBAN HOUSE, PALLIKUNNU, WANDOOR
               P.O MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 328
               *(THE NAME OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DELETED FROM THE
               PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF PETITIONER AS PER THE
               ORDER   DATED   12/02/2021   IN   IA   NO.01/2021   IN
               WP(C)NO.27343/2016)

               R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A
               R1, R5 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
 WP(C).No.27343 OF 2016(P)        2

             SC. VINOD RAVINDRANATH,
             GP. K.J.MANURAJ

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.27343 OF 2016(P)                   3




                        W.P.(C) No.27343 of 2016
                   ----------------------------------------------


                               JUDGMENT

Petitioner obtained Ext.P1 building permit from Wandoor Grama

Panchayat for constructing a building. It is stated by the petitioner that

while the construction of the building was progressing, a complaint was

lodged by one Ummer before the third respondent concerning the

construction undertaken by the petitioner. On the said complaint, the third

respondent issued Ext.P9 direction to the Secretary of the Panchayat to

refrain from issuing any further building permit in respect of the land

referred to therein. Pursuant to Ext.P9, the Secretary of the Panchayat

issued Ext.P10 proceedings restraining the petitioner from carrying out any

construction in the property. Ext.P9 and Ext.P10 are under challenge in the

writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the

learned Government Pleader.

3. It is seen that the petitioner has been issued Ext.P1

building permit on 27.08.2014 by the Panchayat. If the petitioner has done

any illegality in the guise of constructing the building covered by Ext.P1

building permit, it is certainly open to the third respondent to initiate

appropriate action in accordance with law. The third respondent has nothing

to do with the grant of building permit, and the grant of building permit is a

function of the Panchayat. The third respondent cannot, therefore, interdict

the Panchayat from granting any building permit to the petitioner. Ext.P9

communication issued by the third respondent is therefore, without

jurisdiction and liable to be interfered with. Ext.P10 being a consequential

order issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat, the same is also liable to be

interfered with.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P9 and Ext.P10

orders are quashed. It is, however, made clear that this judgment will not

preclude the third respondent from initiating any action against the

petitioner, if the activity undertaken by the petitioner for constructing the

building covered by Ext.P1 building permit contravenes any law. It is also

made clear that this judgment will not preclude the Panchayat from ensuring

that the construction already completed by the petitioner and proposed by

the petitioner are in accordance with law.

( SD/-) P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

rps

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27343/2016 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 27-

8-2014

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 23-9-

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 31-8-

EXHIBITBP4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASST.

ENGINEER, LSGD WNADOOR

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN DATED 04-09-2014

EXHIBITP6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DARED 5-7-2013

EXHIBITP7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 24-10-2014

EXHIBITP8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE THRID RESPONDENT DATED 24-10-2014

EXHIBITP9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12-10-2015

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-10-2015

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5-4-2016 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT

EXIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PHTOGRAPHS