HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
J.S. CLOUD, – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
WP(C)/23729/2022
Building Permit - Writ Petition - Kerala Land Reforms Act - Relevant Provisions Considered for Building Permit Applications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner owned a garden land in Vengappally Village and sought a Building Permit, but the Grama Panchayat denied it based on incorrect information regarding land classification as per the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat must process the Building Permit application based on relevant law and could seek further documents from the petitioner rather than relying solely on inaccurate third-party information.
Issues: Whether the Secretary to the Grama Panchayat could deny the Building Permit based on external communication without valid grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: The Secretary is obliged to investigate the merits of the application for a Building Permit, and cannot merely defer the decision to other authorities without proper evaluation of the submitted documents.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed of; Grama Panchayat Secretary directed to process Building Permit in accordance with law within two months.
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2022 The petitioner-Company, owner in possession of
57.25 Cents of land in Vengappally Village of Vythiri Taluk, Wayanad District, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Exts.P9 and P10 orders and to direct the 5th respondent-Grama Panchayat to issue Building Permit in favour of the petitioner based on the application submitted by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner states that the land of the petitioner is a garden land. The petitioner's predecessor has obtained Patta as per Exts.P5 and P6.
3. The petitioner submitted application for Building Permit. The Secretary to the Panchayat issued a communication without hearing the petitioner, stating that the property was included in a ceiling case under the Kerala Land Reforms Act . Based on the wrong information issued by the Village Officer, the Secretary- Vengappally Grama Panchayat is not issuing the Building Permit.
4. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the property in question was included in the Settlement Register of erstwhile Malabar District of the State of Madras. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the property is not a paddy land or wetland. The petitioner states that the land is a commercial land. The Secretary therefore ought not have referred the matter to the Village Officer.
5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the 5th respondent and submitted that the District Collector has issued a Circular L9/5369/2013 dated 08.05.2016 wherein the Secretaries of the Grama Panchayats were required to ensure that the land in respect of which Building Permit is being issued will not fall within the purview of KLR/KLU/KCPL & WL Act. In view of the said Circular, Ext.P9 letter has been issued to the Village Officer seeking requisite information.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4 and 6 and the learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent.
7. The Secretary to the Grama Panchayat while processing a Building Permit application is exercising a statutory function. The Secretary is bound to consider the legality of the Building Permit application submitted by an applicant based on the criteria laid down by the relevant Building Rules. It is true that in view of the proviso to Rule 5(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, the Municipal authorities are to ensure that the required statutory licences and other permissions and consents are obtained for any constructions.
8. However, the nature of the land and permissibility of a Building Permit thereon has to be considered on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner and other documents made available. If the Secretary has any doubt regarding the nature of the land, it will be open to the Secretary to seek further documents/ clarifications from the petitioner/ applicant. The Secretary cannot abstain from exercising his duties after sending a communication to the Village Officer seeking information.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 5th respondent- Secretary to consider and process the Building Permit application in accordance with law. The Secretary will be at liberty to seek such documents as are necessary for ensuring any statutory compliances, from the petitioner. A decision on the application shall be taken within a period of two months.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm/25.08.2022 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23729/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.57/1/21 DATED 1/1/2021.
Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.837/1/21 DATED 15/2/2021.
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO. 1781/1/21 DATED 15/7/2021.
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE TITLE DEED DATED
15/7/2021.
Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE PATTA NO.1860 DATED
17/10/1977.
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED BY THE KALPETTA LAND TRIBUNAL AS PER PATTA NO.1021/1979 DATED 17/10/1979.
Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE SURRENDER CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPE
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.