Kerala High Court
Muhammed Suhail M vs Ongallur Grama Panchayath on 23 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 10893 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED SUHAIL M.
S/O.HAMSA,
MANJALUNGAL HOUSE, KALLADIPATTA P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 313
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
HAMSA M, S/O.HYDROSE,
AGED 65 YEARS, MANJALUNGAL HOUSE,
KALLADIPATTA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 313
BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 ONGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PANCHAYAT OFFICE, ONGALLUR P.O, PATTAMBI,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 313
2 THE SECRETARY, ONGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
PANCHAYAT OFFICE, ONGALLUR P.O.,
PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 313
BY ADV R.SREEHARI
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10893 OF 2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 10893 of 2022
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2022
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following
prayers:
"(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate
Writ, Orders or directions to call for the records leading
up to Exhibit P-8 and to quash the same;
(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other
appropriate Writ, Orders or directions commanding the
2nd respondent to regularize the construction made by
the petitioner by considering the request as
expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time
frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest
of justice;
(iii) Issue a writ to declare that the rejection of
application for regularization of the construction made
in the first floor of the building on the ground that the
same violates Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat
Raj Act, 1994 is per se illegal and arbitrary.
(iv) Render such other orders or directions as
this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and necessary in
the facts and circumstances of the case."[SIC]
2. The main prayer in the writ petition is against
WP(C) NO. 10893 OF 2022
Ext.P8 order. Ext.P8 is an order passed by the 2 nd
respondent invoking the powers under the Kerala
Panchayat Building (Regularization of Unauthorised
Construction) Rules, 2018 (for short 'the Rules 2018').
Against Ext.P8 order as per Rule 10, there is a review
possible before the Government. It will be better to
extract Rule 10 of the Rules 2018.
"10. Review by Government. - (1) Any person
aggrieved by an order issued under the provisions of
these rules, may file a petition for review, to the
Government.
Provided that there shall be only one review
against any order issued.
(2) A petition for review under sub-rule(1) shall be
presented within thirty days from the date of service of
the order, allowing or rejecting the application by the
Secretary.
(3) The review petition shall be in white paper
typed or written in ink, affixed with court fee stamp
worth rupees five, and the same shall be submitted
along with the true copy of the order to be reviewed.
(4) When a petition for review has been presented
under these rules, the Government may, if found
necessary, stay the operation of the order, pending
consideration of the petition.
(5) The Government shall, after reviewing the
petition, pass appropriate orders thereon after hearing
WP(C) NO. 10893 OF 2022
the petitioner and forward the same to the Secretary
concerned, with copy thereof to the Town Planner.
(6) In case the review petition is rejected, the
Secretary shall initiate action as provided under rule 9. "
In the light of the same, I think the petitioner is
free to file a review before the Government against
Ext.P8. Since the petitioner approached this Court
immediately after Ext.P8 order is passed, the
Government will see that the review, if any filed within a
time prescribed by this Court shall not be dismissed for
the reason of delay.
Therefore this writ petition is disposed of in the
following manner:
i. The petitioner is free to file a review as per
Rule 10 of the Rules 2018, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
ii. Once such a review is received from the
petitioner by the additional 3rd respondent as directed
above, the additional 3rd respondent will consider the
WP(C) NO. 10893 OF 2022
same and pass appropriate orders in it in accordance
to law.
iii. All the contentions raised by the petitioner
in this writ petition are left open and the petitioner is
free to raise all those contentions before the
additional 3rd respondent.
iv. The petitioner will produce a copy of this
writ petition along with a certified copy of this
judgment before the additional 3rd respondent for
compliance.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
DM JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 10893 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10893/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1736/2017 OF
S.R.O.PATTAMBI DATED 01-08-2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 01-06-2020 ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER ONGALLUR.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPTS FOR THE
YEAR 2018-2019 AND 2019-2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.H4-
6988/19 DATED 26-11-2020 OF THE
TAHSILDAR, PATTAMBI.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.A4.4296/19 DATED 04-03-2021 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-
02-2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.2595 OF 2022.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 28-02-
2022 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A4-4296/19
DATED 16-03-2022 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
