IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22989 of 2010(W)
1. K.MOHANAN,SECRETARY,ACE EDUCATIONAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY, ERANHOLI GRAMA
... Respondent
2. THE ERANHOLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :03/08/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.22989/2010-W
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner seeks for a direction to the Panchayat
to consider and pass orders on the application for building
permit.
2. The petitioner is the Secretary of Ace Educational
Charitable Trust. They are proposing to establish an
educational institution in the property in Survey No.1 of
Eranholi Panchayat. Plan was submitted in March 2010.
Thereafter, a representation has been submitted by the
petitioner to the Secretary of the Panchayat. Ext.P1 is
the copy of the said communication. By Ext.P2, the
petitioner was given a reply to produce various documents,
including a certificate from the Village Officer as to
whether any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act is
pending or not. After approaching the Village Officer, the
petitioner submitted Ext.P3 letter stating that no
notifications are in force with regard to the acquisition
of the property in question under the Land Acquisition Act
and that the Village Officer has refused to issue a
certificate.
3. Inspite of receipt of notice, respondent Nos.1 and
2 have not entered appearance through counsel. The learned
W.P.(C). No.22989/2010
-:2:-
counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is unnecessary
to insist on a certificate from the Village Officer and
there is no procedure to issue a certificate as the one
sought for. It is further pointed out that the Village
Officer can certify details regarding the change of
ownership only after an award is passed under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act, if at all there is any
proceedings for acquisition.
4. I find merit in the above submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. In that view of the
matter, the Panchayat cannot insist for such a certificate
from the Village Officer. If at all any information is
required by the Panchayat, it is upto the Secretary to seek
information from the Village Officer but, that shall not
stand in the way of the grant of building permit. There
will be a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take a
decision in regard to the grant of building permit and
communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of
one month in the light of the principles stated in Padmini
v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465] wherein it was held
that even a proposal for acquisition cannot be a ground to
reject the application for building permit.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms