Kerala High Court
Muhammed Suhail M vs Ongallur Grama Panchayat on 24 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WA NO. 584 OF 2023
WP(C) 10893/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED SUHAIL M., S/O HAMSA, AGED 33 YEARS,
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, PIN - 679313
BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ONGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
ONGALLUR P.O., PATTAMBI PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
679313
2 THE SECRETARY
ONGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
ONGALLUR P.O., PATTAMBI PALAKKAD DISTRICT,, PIN
- 679313
BY ADV R.SREEHARI, SC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 584 OF 2023
..2..
JUDGMENT
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
This intra court appeal was filed by the writ
petitioner. The matter is related to
regularization of unauthorized construction of
first floor in an existing building. By virtue
of the Kerala Panchayat Building
(Regularization of Unauthorised Construction)
Rules, 2018 (for short, "the Rules"), an
application was filed for regularization. This
application was filed within time. However,
while considering the application, noting that
the outer limit of period prescribed under the
Rules for receiving application has been ran
out, the panchayat rejected the application.
That came under challenge before this Court in
an earlier writ petition and this Court set
aside the order and directed reconsideration
WA NO. 584 OF 2023
..3..
of the matter. Thereafter, the matter was
reconsidered and however, noting that there is
violation of Section 220(b) of the Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, (for short, "the
Act"), the application has been rejected
again.
2. Heard Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri.R.Sreehari, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent panchayat.
3. It is to be noted that there exists a ground
floor already, which has already been numbered
by the panchayat. Section 220(b) of the Act
refers to constructions abutting roads, which
mandates that there should be a minimum
distance from the boundary of the land
abutting the road. We are unable to fathom the
reasoning of the panchayat in rejecting the
application. If there exists a ground floor,
which has been numbered, how is it possible to
reject an application with reference to
WA NO. 584 OF 2023
..4..
Section 220(b) of the Act in respect of the
first floor? Nobody has a case that the ground
floor is an illegal construction. That being
the case, we have to only conclude that the
panchayat is rejecting the application without
any cogent reason. It seems that the panchayat
is for one reason or other delaying the
application. Initially, they rejected the
application on flimsy ground. That was set
aside. Now, it is rejected referring to
Section 220(b) of the Act, overlooking the
fact that they have already numbered the
ground floor.
4. The learned Single Judge relegated the writ
petitioner for review before the Government.
We find, such exercise is unwarranted in the
circumstances inasmuch as that the decision of
the panachayat itself was illegal.
Hence, the writ appeal is allowed. The
impugned order is set aside. The application
WA NO. 584 OF 2023
..5..
for regularization shall be taken up and
disposed of within a period of four weeks.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
