P. UMMER v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
- Bench
- MOHAMMED NIAS C P
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ss. 220(b), 235(w)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In the above circumstance, there will be a direction to the Panchayat to consider Ext.P6 application submitted by the petitioner, after the receipt of the Taluk Surveyor’s report. The petitioner will be afforded an opportunity of hearing, and orders in accordance with law, shall…
Judgment
SRI.SYAMANTHAK B.S., GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 29938 OF 2023 2 MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J. ========================= W.P.(C) No. 29938 of 2023 ========================= Dated this the 4th day of June, 2024 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated to have constructed a commercial building having 30.31 sq. metres in Survey No.215/5290 of Nenmeni Gramapanchayat in Wayanadu District. The petitioner submits that he had purchased three cents of land and entrusted a Contractor to construct a small commercial building. Since the building was constructed without obtaining approval from the Panchayat, they declined to grant the building number and occupancy certificate. The petitioner is employed abroad, and he made an application on
18.05.2019 as seen from Ext.P1. The petitioner had also submitted an application seeking regularisation before the second respondent- Deputy Director of the Panchayat, who forwarded the same to the 3rd respondent-Panchayat. The Panchayat declined to regularize the building alleging violation of Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as the building was within 3 meters from the notified road. The petitioner again submitted Ext.P6 representation seeking regularization. WP(C) NO. 29938 OF 2023 3
The Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit in which it is pointed out that the building was constructed without giving the required space of 3 metres and therefore, the building cannot be regularised going by the embargo under Section 220(b) read with Section 235(w) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. However, the Panchayat submits that it is unable to determine the boundary of the petitioners’ property and notified road. Hence, a requisition has been sent to the Taluk Surveyor for conducting a survey and measurements through its letter dated 23.09.2023. Further steps can be taken only on such determination by the Taluk Surveyor.
Operative part
In the above circumstance, there will be a direction to the Panchayat to consider Ext.P6 application submitted by the petitioner, after the receipt of the Taluk Surveyor’s report. The petitioner will be afforded an opportunity of hearing, and orders in accordance with law, shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of the surveyor report. The writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE LU WP(C) NO. 29938 OF 2023 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29938/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE PANCHAYATH DATED 18.05.2019 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, KALPETTA DATED 27.07.2019 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE GRAMAPANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER DATED 06.09.2019 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE GRAMAPANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER DATED 12.02.2021 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MINISTER FOR THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DATED 01.11.2021. THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GRAMAPANCHAYATH DATED 03.07.2023 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT R3(A) EXHIBIT R3(B) A. TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE TALUK SURVEYOR LETTER A. NO:401005/PTRE09/GPO/2023/8086/(1) DATED 03.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF // True Copy // PA To Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 — ss. 220(b), 235(w).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.