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
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:
3. No counter affidavit is seen filed by the appellan
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.