SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Ker) 645

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S. MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ.
Cheranelloor Grama Panchayath, Rep. by its Secretary, Chittoor – Appellant
Versus
Joe Thattil S/o Antony Thattil – Respondent
W.A. No. 1007 of 2020
Decided On : 24-09-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri. P. Mohandas, Sri. K. Sudhinkumar, Sri. S.K. Adhithyan, Sri. Sabu Pullan, Sri. Gokul D. Sudhakaran, Dr. K.P. Satheesan.
For the Respondent: Sri. P.K. Soyuz.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Application is to be submitted to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat in Form I - A of Rules, 2018-The Secretary of the Grama Panchayat did not have any power under Rules, 2018 to take any decision rather than forwarding the application received along with the statutory requirements to the State Government-Under Rule 2(k) of Rules, 2018 unauthorised construction means any construction, addition or reconstruction as explained under section 235AB of the Act, which was carried out or completed on or before the 31st day of July, 2017 and which the Secretary has no power to regularise under section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and Chapter XXII of the Building Rules, 2011 dealing with regularisation of un-permitted constructions and deviations

Headnote:

Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994- Section 235W(1) -Non securing of orders under Section 27A of the Act 2008 – Enables-The Secretary- Powers under Rule 134 of Rules, 2011-Realisation of a compounding fee – Permit was already granted by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to carry out construction-An additional construction carried out deviating from the permit is entitled for regularization-The Secretary has not pointed out any violation of the Kerala Panchayt Raj Act or the Building Rules-To secure permission under Section 27A-It has prospective operation only from 30.12.2017.

Statement of facts:

Appeal is preferred by the respondents in W.P. (C) No. 7007 of 2020 i.e. the Cheranalloor Grama Panchayat and its Secretary challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 26.02.2020, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed Ext.P6 notice issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat dated 15.12.2018 declining to issue, the occupancy certificate and building number due to the additional construction carried out by the writ petitioner/respondent against Ext.P3 permit dated 26.10.2015 granted by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat

Finding of the court:

The sole defect pointed out by the Secretary is non securing of orders under Section 27A of the Act 2008 which has come into force on and w.e.f. 30.12.2017 -The additional construction made by the writ petitioner is susceptible to be corrected under the proviso to Section 235W read along with rule 134 of Rules, 2011.

Result: Writ Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. The appeal is preferred by the respondents in W.P. (C) No. 7007 of 2020 i.e. the Cheranalloor Grama Panchayat and its Secretary challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 26.02.2020, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed Ext.P6 notice issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat dated 15.12.2018 declining to issue, the occupancy certificate and building number due to the additional construction carried out by the writ petitioner/respondent against Ext.P3 permit dated 26.10.2015 granted by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. Consequently, the writ petitioner was directed to secure necessary orders from the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (‘the Act, 2008’ for short). Thereby, the Secretary was directed to consider the grant of occupancy certificate afresh without any reference to the nature of land in revenue records as paddy field, in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 (‘Rules, 2011’ for brevity), which was in force at the time of grant of Ext.P3 building permit dated 26.10.2015 and not on the basis of the subsequent Building Rules that has come into force, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, this appeal is filed.

2. The material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

    The writ petitioner is the owner in possession of 5.66 Ares of property comprised in Re-Survey No. 306/4, Block No. 4 of Cheranalloor Village in Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, which is an undisputed fact. The said property was included in the data bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee of the Cheranalloor Grama Panchayat under the provisions of the Act, 2008 as converted before 5 years. The writ petitioner submitted an application for building permit before the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, the second appellant herein, for the construction of the residential house in the property, against which Ext.P3 permit was granted for the construction of 240.77 square meters of residential building in two floors. Admittedly, over and above the plinth area permitted to be constructed as per the permit, the writ petitioner carried out additional constructions and it was completed on 28.12.2017. Thereafter, in accordance with Rules, 2011, the writ petitioner has submitted a completion plan, and an application seeking occupancy certificate before the Secretary on 30.01.2018. Since the application was not considered, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 31405 of 2018 seeking appropriate directions for consideration of the application. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the writ petitioner to file an application for regularisation in the prescribed format and thereupon, directed the respondents therein to consider and dispose of the application within three months. It was thereafter that Ext.P6 impugned notice was issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat dated 15.12.2018 stating that since the land owned by the writ petitioner is classified as ‘nilam’ in the revenue records, permission should be obtained from the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Section 27A of the Act, 2008, with a further direction that a proper application should be submitted for regularisation of additional portion of building constructed deviating from the approved plan. The case of the writ petitioner is that since the writ petitioner was abroad, the application for regularisation of the additional construction could be furnished only on 29.02.2020, produced as Ext.P7 along with the writ petition and the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has issued Ext.P8 receipt for the same.

3. No counter affidavit is seen filed by the appellan

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top