Dr. Mohammedkutty vs Ponmala Grama Panchayat
2021 Latest Caselaw 8930 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

  WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA,
                           1942

                  WP(C).No.6020 OF 2021(B)


PETITIONERS:

     1       DR. MOHAMMEDKUTTY,
             AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. ALI,
             KANNIYAN HOUSE, PUTHOOR POST, VALIYAPARAMB,
             MALAPPURAM-676503.

     2       DR. SALEELA P.P.,
             AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. MOHAMMEDKUTTY,
             KANNIYAN HOUSE, PUTHOOR POST,
             VALIYAPARAMB, MALAPPURAM-676503.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
             SMT.C.K.SHERIN

RESPONDENTS:

             PONMALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHAPPANANGADI
             P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676503.

             R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 17.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.6020 of 2021              2




                   W.P.(C) No.6020 of 2021
             -----------------------------------------------


                          JUDGMENT

Petitioners hold an item of property measuring 2.19

ares within the limits of the first respondent Panchayat. They

have constructed a building in the said land without obtaining

building permit from the Panchayat. Later, they preferred

Ext.P2 application for regularization of the construction. On

Ext.P2 application, petitioners have been issued Ext.P3

communication pointing out the defects noted in the

application. It is stated by the petitioners that two out of the

three defects noted in Ext.P3 have been rectified by the

petitioners and their grievance in the writ petition concerns the

remaining defect, viz, that the petitioners have not obtained lay

out approval of the District Town Planner to enable the

Panchayat to consider the application for regularization. The

case set out by the petitioners in the writ petition is that the

vendor of the petitioners has developed a large area during

2007; that the plot purchased by the petitioners is part of the

area developed by the vendor; that layout approval of the

District Town Planner was not obtained by the vendor of the

petitioners for development of the area and it is on account of

the said reason that the defect aforesaid has been noted in

Ext.P3 communication. It is also the case of the petitioners that

the requirement of obtaining lay out approval for developing

the area in the manner in which it was done by the vendor of

the petitioners was introduced for the first time in terms of the

Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 and since the

development took place long prior to the said rules, the said

provision cannot be made applicable for considering the

application for regularization submitted by the petitioners.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as

also the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent does

not dispute the fact that the land has been developed by the

vendor of the petitioners long prior to the Kerala Panchayat

Building Rules, 2011, in terms of which lay out approval of the

District Town Planner was made obligatory for undertaking land

development. If that be so, according to me, the petitioners

cannot be asked to obtain lay out approval of the District Town

Planner for considering the application for regularization

submitted by them.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P3

communication, in so far as it directs the petitioners to obtain

lay out approval of the District Town Planner for considering the

application preferred by the petitioners for regularization of the

building is quashed and the Panchayat is directed to consider

and pass orders on the application preferred by the petitioners

in accordance with law, within one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

YKB

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 26/04/2016 NUMBERED AS DOC.

NO.1621/2016 OF SRO, MALAPPURAM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH A COVERING LETTER REQUESTING FOR ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19/04/2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF ADALATH DATED 11/09/2017 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 13/01/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 30/01/2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 05/02/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 23/02/2021 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE