Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 14674 Ker
Judgement Date : 14 July, 2021
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. 23720 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:
1 J.BALAKRISHNAN
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.JANARDHANAN, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUTHUKADU
HOUSE, KINASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.P.S.APPU
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KANNADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNADI P.O.,
PALAKKAD - 678 701
2 THE CONVENER
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (UNDER THE KERALA
CONSERVATION OF PADDY & WET LANDS ACT) PALAKKAD-678001.
3 THE CONVENER
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE(UNDER THE KERALA
CONSERVATION OF PADDY & WETLANDS ACT) PALAKKAD-678 701.
(ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.01.2017 IN I.A.
NO. 1302/2017)
R2 AND R3 - SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
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. 23720/2016 :2:
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2021.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to
the first respondent Panchayat to reconsider the application for
building permit submitted by the petitioner, in the light of the dictum
laid down by this Court in Jafarkhan v. K.A. Kochumakkar & others
[2012(1) KHC 523 (DB), Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner
[2010(2) KLT 617] and Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama
Panchayat [2009(3) KLT 899 and taking into consideration the
present state of affairs now prevailing in the area in question.
2. The petitioner is the owner of an extent of 0.0334 hectares of
landed property in R.S. No. 624/3 of Kannadi-II Village, Palakkad
District, within the limits of the Kannadi Grama Panchayat. It is
submitted that the petitioner has submitted an application seeking
building permit before the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, which
was rejected as per Ext. P2 order dated 02.02.2016 assigning the
reason that the property in question is a paddy field. It is, thus,
challenging Ext. P2 and seeking other consequential reliefs, this writ
petition is filed.
3. Detailed deliberation of the matter is not required, even
though certain documents are produced by the Government along with
a memo dated 07.03.2017 for the reason that the learned counsel for
the petitioner fairly submitted that since the property is included in the
data bank, unless and until the petitioner seeks appropriate relief
under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Act, 2008, he will not be in a position to secure permit from
the Grama Panchayat.
4. Therefore, the relief sought for in the writ petition seeking to
quash Ext. P2 is declined, however, leaving open the liberty of the
petitioner to approach the statutory authority under the Act, 2008 for
removal of the property from the data bank and if in any case the
petitioner secures necessary permission from the authority under the
Act, 2008, the liberty of the petitioner also would be left open to
approach the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat seeking permit for
construction.
With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23720/2016
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE,KANNADI II VILLAGE TO THE PETITIONER DTD 21/7/2015 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD 2/2/2016. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 35857/2015 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DTD 1/12/2015.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/True Copy/
PS to Judge
rv
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!