Harin V. Gopal vs The Venmony Grama Panchayat
2022 Latest Caselaw 9748 Ker

WP(C) NO. 16553 OF 2022            1




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
       FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944
                          WP(C) NO. 16553 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

               HARIN V. GOPAL
               AGED 40 YEARS
               S/O VENUGOPAL, NALLOTTIL HOUSE, UMBERNADU, KALLUMALA
               P. O., MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 110.

               BY ADVS.
               S.SHANAVAS KHAN
               S.INDU



RESPONDENT/S:

      1        THE VENMONY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
               VENMONY VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
               - 689 121, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

      2        THE SECRETARY
               VENMONY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VENMONY VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR
               TALUK , ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 689 121.

               BY ADV MANOJ RAMASWAMY

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 16553 OF 2022                   2




                        P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                    ---------------------------------------
                       W.P.(C) No.16553 of 2022
                     --------------------------------------
                Dated this the 26th day of August, 2022


                                     JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

"i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P2 and quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari.

ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ order or direction directing the respondents to issue licence to the petitioner's firm namely 'Yathri Yard, Thazhambhagom, Kodakulanji, Chengannur and

iii) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." [SIC]

2. The petitioner is an entrepreneur who took the

property comprised in Survey No. 28/14 of Venmony Village on

rent from one Remani P, w/o Subhash P, who is the mother-in-

law of the petitioner. Thereafter, when the petitioner submitted

a license application before the 1st respondent, the 2nd

respondent noted two defects vide Ext.P2 communication. The

1st ground is that the owner of the building is one Sreeja Babu

as per the Panchayat records and hence, the rental agreement

of the said person has to to be attached with the application.

The 2nd ground is that the property tax arrears pertaining to the

property is to be remitted. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2.

Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

property is already transferred in the name of his mother-in-law

and property tax is also paid as evident by Ext.P4 tax receipt.

The owner of the property already submitted Ext.P5 for

changing the ownership of the building. In such circumstances,

the 1st ground mentioned in Ext.P2 will not stand is the

contention. As far as the 2nd ground is concerned, the counsel

submitted that this Court stayed the payment of property tax as

per Ext.P7. The counsel for the Panchayat submitted that there

is some technical difficulty in connection with the website for

considering the request because the ownership of the building is

in the name of the erstwhile owner.

5. This Court considered the contentions of the

petitioner and the respondents. The 1 st ground mentioned in

Ext.P2 is unsustainable, according to me, in the light of Ext.P4

tax receipt. As per Ext.P4, the owner of the property is Remani

P., w/o Subhash, who is the mother-in-law of the petitioner. The

petitioner's mother-in-law already submitted Ext.P5 application

before the Panchayat for change of the ownership of the

building. It is the duty of the Panchayat to make consequential

change in the register. For that purpose, the petitioner need not

suffer. As far as the payment of property tax is concerned, this

Court already stayed the same as evident by Ext.P7 order.

Therefore, according to me, that ground is also unsustainable.

Ext.P2 is to be set aside.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed.

1) Ext.P2 is set aside.

2) There will be a direction to the respondents to

consider Ext.P5 and take appropriate steps to change

the ownership of the building forthwith. Consequently,

the Panchayat will consider the license application

submitted by the petitioner.

3) The above exercise should be completed as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

SD/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16553/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED 17/01/2022.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21/02/2022 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE NO.

704/2021 ISSUED BY CHERIANAD SUB REGISTRY OFFICE.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 04/08/2021 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, VENMONI.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17/12/2021 SUBMITTED BY SMT. REMANI P. BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 01/09/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 09/12/2021 IN W.P. (C) NO. 28264 OF 2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 03/02/2022 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER.