Kerala High Court
Hareesh Kumar S vs Athirampuzha Grama Panchayat ... on 23 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 17165 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
HAREESH KUMAR S
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O P.J. SASEENDRA BABU,
KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARPOOKARA WEST P.O.,
ARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686008
BY ADVS.
CHITHRA CHANDRASEKHARAN
RAJEEV V.K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY
OFFICE OF THE ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
CHARISBHAVAN CONNCECTION ROAD,
ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686562
2 SECRETARY
ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE
ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
CHARISBHAVAN CONNCECTION ROAD,
ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686562
BY ADV ADV VARUGHESE M EASO
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 17165 OF 2024
2
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
=========================
W.P.(C.) No. 17165 of 2024
=========================
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order rejecting the
application seeking a building permit for want of layout
approval. Both sides submit that the issue is covered in
favour of the petitioner by the judgments of this Court in
Panjal Grama Panchayat v. Annesh (2022 (2) KLT
653 and Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality (2018
(3) KLT 1).
2. In view of the above judgments, the petitioner is
entitled to a consideration of an application for a building
permit without insisting on the development permit.
3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
Panchayat submits that the previous owner of the
property, from whom the petitioner purchased the land,
had developed the property without seeking or obtaining a
WP(C) NO. 17165 OF 2024
valid development permit from the Panchayat. Therefore,
the owner of the property is liable to be proceeded against.
If the previous owner has committed any violation of the
Building Rules, it is up to the Panchayat to take
appropriate action as warranted. However, the same can
not be a reason to deny the building permit to the
petitioner for the reason stated in the impugned order.
4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the
Secretary of the Panchayat to reconsider the application
for a building permit submitted by the petitioner without
insisting on the approved layout or a development permit
and pass appropriate orders on the application, if the same
is otherwise in order, within six weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.,
JUDGE
LU
WP(C) NO. 17165 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17165/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL05030413958/2023 DATED 05/10/2023
ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE,
ATHIRAMPUZHA IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
RECEIPT DATED 20/02/2024 HAVING FILE
NO. 400476/BPRO1/GPO/2024/1311 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO,
400476/BPRL01/GPO/ 2024/1311(2) DATED
25.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.17150/2023
DATED 11/08/2023
// True Copy // PA To Judge
