Kunjabdulla vs The Cheruvannur Grama Panchayat
2022 Latest Caselaw 1220 Ker

W.P.(C) No. 18033/2016                   : 1:




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

         FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA, 1943

                          WP(C) NO. 18033 OF 2016

PETITIONER/S:

     1       KUNJABDULLA, S/O. KUNHAMMED,
             OTHAYOTH HOUSE, CHERUVANNUR P.O.,MEPPAYYUR (VIA),
             KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

     2       KUJAYISHA DO.KUNHAMMED
             PULEENA KANDIMEETHAL,

     3       NAFEESA, D/O.KUNHAMMED
             PUTHUKKEPURATHU HOUSE, ERAVATUR P.O.,PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE
             DISTRICT.

             BY ADV SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI



RESPONDENT/S:

     1       THE CHERUVANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT
             CHERUVANNUR P.O, MEPPAYYUR (VIA),CALICUT -673 524,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

     2       THE SECRETARY
             THE CHERUVANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHERUVANNUR P.O,
             MEPPAYYUR (VIA),CALICUT -673 524.

      THIS   WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD   ON

      28.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 18033/2016               : 2:


             Dated this the 28th day of January, 2022.

                              JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners basically challenging

Ext. P7 order issued by the Secretary of the Cheruvannur Grama

Panchayat, the second respondent, cancelling the building permit No.

BL-148/15-16 dated 06.05.2015 on the ground that the property in

which permit was granted for constructing the building, is proposed to

be acquired for the construction of a stadium for the Panchayat.

Thereupon, the petitioners have submitted Ext. P8 representation

before the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. Anyhow, as per Ext.

P10, the Panchayat has taken a decision not to continue with the

acquisition proceedings, since the Panchayat is not having sufficient

funds to acquire the property. It is in this background that the writ

petition is filed basically contending that the action of the Panchayat in

cancelling the building permit without providing a notice of hearing to

the petitioners is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of

natural justice.

2. Anyhow, from Ext. P10, it is clear that the Panchayat has

taken a decision not to proceed with the proposal for the construction

of the stadium. Therefore, if the construction could not be proceeded

with by the petitioners as per the permit granted, it is for the

petitioners to pursue their remedies for further construction in

accordance with law. This I say because, this writ petition was

pending before this Court from the year 2016 onwards without

securing any interim orders.

3. In that view of the matter, after having heard the learned

counsel for the petitioners, Sri. B. Krishna Mani and perusing the

pleadings and materials on record, this writ petition is disposed of,

leaving open the liberty of the petitioners to approach the Grama

Panchayat, if the construction was stopped on account of Ext. P7

impugned order, to proceed with further construction in accordance

with law. One thing is clear, merely because the Panchayat has a

proposal for the acquisition of the property for carrying out any

activities in the Panchayat, the Panchayat cannot cancel the permit on

the basis of the same. Necessarily, the Panchayat will have to take

action in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Land

Acquisition Act, failing which the Panchayat is duty bound to consider

the permit application in accordance with law.

5. Moreover, a proceeding for the acquisition cannot be kept in

limbo by the Grama Panchayat, in view of Section 67 of the Kerala

Town and Country Planning Act, 2016, whereby if and when a notice is

issued by an owner of a property, the Panchayat is duty bound to take

a decision in regard to the acquisition in contemplation of the

provisions of Section 67 of the Act, 2016. Therefore, the petitioners

are entitled, as of right, to pursue their remedies in regard to the

construction of the building in question in accordance with law, and if

any such application is filed, the Panchayat shall take a decision

bearing in mind the above discussed aspects.

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18033/2016

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 22.3.1974

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 9.2.2015

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.10.2015

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED NIL

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 6.5.2015

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN

P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, CHERUVANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

P8                       TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL
                         BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

P9                       TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 7.1.2016

P10                      TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 5.12.2014 BY
                         THE COUNCIL OF THE PANCHAYAT.


RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL



                                 /True Copy/



                                                                 PS To Judge.

rv