Kerala High Court
Rajula Rasheed Alias Rajila vs The Divisional Railway Manager ... on 28 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 3248 OF 2022
PETITIONER
RAJULA RASHEED ALIAS RAJILA
AGED 49 YEARS,W/O. RASHEED N.K
NANETHAN HOUSE, RAYONPURAM, CHELAMATTOM
VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683543
BY ADVS.
SAJU N.A.
G.LEKHA
P.J.FLONY
UMA.G.KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS
1 THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER WORKS
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, WORKS
BRANCH, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695014
2 ADDL.R2. IMPLEADED
CHOORNIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
CHOORNIKKARA, THAIKKATTUKARA. P.O., ALUVA-
683106, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT 2 AS PER
ORDER DATED 31/03/2022 IN IA 1/2022 IN WP(C)
3248/2022.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.DINESH RAO, SC, RAILWAYS
ANIL K.MUHAMED
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.3248 of 2022 :2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2022
The petitioner, who has completed construction of a
three storied residential cum commercial building in 4.10
Ares of property in Re-Survey No.360/4 of Choornikkara
Village, Ernakulam District, has approached this Court
seeking to direct the respondents to consider issuing No
Objection Certificate for the construction carried out by the
petitioner on the basis of Ext.P3 letter cum undertaking.
2. The petitioner states that the petitioner submitted an
application for Building Permit to the additional 2 nd
respondent-Choornikkara Grama Panchayat and a building
permit was issued. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's land
being near a railway line, the additional 2 nd respondent-
Grama Panchayat authorities sought NOC from the Railway
Authorities, for construction of the building. The Railway
Authorities rejected the application for NOC as per Ext.P3
holding that the proposed construction of the petitioner is
infringing the proposed 3rd and 4th railway lines and therefore
NOC cannot be issued.
3. The petitioner states that after Ext.P3, the petitioner
gave Ext.P5 undertaking to the 1 st respondent-Railway
Authority pointing out that beyond the same line, other
buildings have been constructed and the Railway Authorities
have given NOC accepting the undertaking given by the land
owners to the effect that if the land is required for future
expansion of railways, the land owners will voluntarily
surrender that portion of the land demolishing the
construction, if any, without insisting for payment of
compensation. Since other similarly situated persons are
granted NOC accepting such undertaking, the petitioner is
also entitled to similar relief, contended the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
4. The Standing Counsel for the additional 2 nd
respondent entered appearance on behalf of the additional
2nd respondent. It is submitted that the additional 2 nd
respondent- Panchayat has no hesitation in considering the
application for Building Permit and Occupancy Certificate of
the petitioner, in accordance with law, provided the Railway
Authorities grant NOC for the construction.
5. The 1st respondent filed a statement. In the
statement, the 1st respondent stated that the issuance or
denial of NOC for building construction adjacent to railway
lines is based on site inspection. In the case of the petitioner,
based on the site inspection report of the construction unit,
the NOC application of the peitioner was rejected.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the respective Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and
2.
7. The petitioner has started construction of her
residential cum commercial building after submitting an
application for Building Permit. According to the petitioner,
the petitioner's building does not violate any of the provisions
of the Building Rules. Still, Building Permit is not issued for
the sole reason that the Railway Authorities have not issued
NOC.
8. It is to be noted that the objection of the Railway
Authorities is not that the building construction falls within the
prohibited distance. The stand of the Railways is that the
building construction of the petitioner may affect proposed 3 rd
and 4th railway lines, contemplated by the Railway
Authorities, for future implementation.
9. Be that as it may, it is to be noted that adjacent to
the same building line, the Railway Authorities have granted
NOC to other similarly situated land owners, after accepting
an undertaking from them to the effect that in case the
proposed laying of the 3rd/4th railway line is implemented, the
land owners will demolish the building without seeking any
compensation for the building. If the Railways have granted
NOC to others accepting such undertaking, there is no
reason why such a permission cannot be granted to the
petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ
petition is disposed of directing the 1 st respondent to consider
the application of the petitioner for NOC for construction of
the building and take a decision afresh, treating the petitioner
at par with the land owners in the area for whom NOC has
been granted, accepting the identical undertaking. The
petitioner shall give an undertaking to the 1 st respondent. To
enable the 1st respondent to consider the application afresh,
Ext.P3 is set aside. A decision in this regard shall be taken by
the 1st respondent and communicate to the Panchayat within
a period of one month.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
smm/ 29.06.2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3248/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit1 BUILDING PLAN
Exhibit2 RECEIPT
Exhibit3 LETTER FROM RESPONDENT
Exhibit4 PHOTOGRAPHS
Exhibit5 LETTER OF UNDERTAKING
