Lissy Gabriyal vs Pallipuram Grama Panchayath
2021 Latest Caselaw 14578 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

         WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1943

                          WP(C) NO. 28869 OF 2015

PETITIONER/S:

             LISSY GABRIYAL
             AGED 53 YEARS
             W/O LATE GABRIYAL, RESIDING AT KUTTAPPASSERY HOUSE,
             PALLIPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN:683 515.
             BY ADVS.
             SRI.P.H.RISHAD
             SRI.GIREESH PANKAJAKSHAN
             SRI.SAIJU S.


RESPONDENT:

     1       PALLIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHERAI P.O., ERNAKULAM
             DISTRICT, PIN:683 514.
     2       THE STANDING COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE
             PALLIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CHERAI
             P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN:683 514.
             BY ADVS.
             SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH
             SRI.T.A.SHAJI SR.




             R1- SRI.ATHUL SHAJI



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

14.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 28869/2015                      :2:




                  Dated this the 14th day of July, 2021.

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner runs a saw mill in the name and style of 'Libin

Brothers Saw Mill' in a property acquired by her deceased husband.

After the construction of the building, the petitioner's deceased

husband duly applied for a building number in the name of the

petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondents on being

satisfied, after the scrutiny of application and other relevant

documents duly numbered the building as Building No. IV/313-A and

issued Exts.P1 and P2 ownership certificates in favour of the petitioner.

Thereafter, Ext. P3 licence and Ext. P4 NOC were granted by the

Panchayat and the DFO, Malayattoor respectively, wherein the building

number was shown as IV/313-A. It is also clear from Ext. P5 issued by

the KSEB and Ext. P6 issued by the respondent Panchayat that the

petitioner's building number is shown as the same.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, from 2002 onwards,

the Panchayat was reluctant to receive payments from the petitioner in

respect of the building in question stating the reason that the building

bearing the said number does not exist in the Panchayat records.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint, which was acknowledged

by Ext. P7. When the petitioner approached the Forest Department for

licence, a direction was issued to submit an application for ownership

certificate. However, when the petitioner submitted an application it

was rejected by the first respondent Grama Panchayat. Thereupon,

the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Standing Committee for

Finance, Pallippuram Grama Panchayat, which was also rejected as per

Ext. P10.

3. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a revision before the Tribunal

for Local Self Government Institutions. According to the petitioner,

the Tribunal, having been satisfied with the credentials of the

petitioner, has set aside the order and directed the Secretary of the

Grama Panchayat to reconsider the claims raised by the petitioner.

Anyhow, after reconsideration, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat

has passed Ext. P14 order dated 24.06.2015 stating that there is no

record at all in the Panchayat to show that the building is existing

within the limits of the Grama Panchayat. It is thus, challenging Ext.

P14 order passed by the Grama Panchayat, this writ petition is filed.

4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Secretary of the

Grama Panchayat contending as follows:

"The Panchayat after due consideration passed Ext. P14 order stating that it would not be possible to grant an ownership certificate

to the petitioner since none of the records with the Panchayat reflected the ownership of the petitioner with the said building. It is also submitted that the order was passed taking note of the fact that the Panchayat records from 1993 (Assessment and Demand Registers) didn't speak of a building with Building No. IV/313-A. The ownership of the petitioner is not evident from the records. The tax due has to be paid as well."

5. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned

Standing Counsel for the Grama Panchayat submitted that from the

record it is clear and evident that sufficient documents were produced

by the petitioner before the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat.

However, those aspects are not reflected in the order passed by the

Secretary of the Grama Panchayat and the Panchayat is prepared to

reconsider the matter, taking into account the documents available on

record or hereafter produced by the petitioner.

6. On an analysis of Ext. P14, it is clear that none of the

documents produced by the petitioner before the Panchayat is not

considered by the Secretary of the Panchayat. While considering the

question of issuance of ownership certificate, the Secretary ought to

have taken note of the earlier certificates issued by it and the building

number reflected in various documents issued by the statutory

authority. It is clear from the documents produced by the petitioner

that the building number IV/313-A was assigned to the petitioner.

However, the reason for not granting the ownership certificate in

regard to the said building is not reflected in the order impugned i.e.,

Ext. P14.

7. In that view of the matter, I think, it is only appropriate that a

direction is given to the Panchayat to reconsider the matter in

accordance with law. Accordingly, Ext. P14 is quashed and there will

be a direction to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to reconsider

the application submitted by the petitioner seeking ownership of the

building No. IV/313-A at the earliest and at any rate, within a month

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after providing an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to

produce documents to establish the ownership of the building in

question.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28869/2015

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE NO.C521/6 DATED 31/08/1996, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE NO.C521/6 DATED 14.02.1997 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPIES OF THE LICENSE GRANTED BY THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH IN 1997 AND RENEWAL OF THE SAME UPTO 2003.

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O OBJECTION CERTIFICATE NO.

C2-6940/97 DATED 13/10/1997, ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, MALAYATTOOR.

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF SANCTIONING LETTER NO. DB-

26/96-97 DATED 14/10/1996, ISSUED BY KSEB ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, NARAKAL.

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPIES OF RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING VARIOUS PAYMENTS MADE BY THE PETITIONER FROM 1996 TO 2001.

Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO. 372/09 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT.

Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. L4-7702/14 DATED 31/07/2014.

Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B-8115/14 DATED 01/10/2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF RP 148/2014, FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LSG INSTITUTIONS. Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/03/2015 IN REVISION PETITION NO.148/14, PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.

Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION IN RP 148/14 FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SEEKING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.

Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/06/2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL