IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35854 of 2009(B)
1. A.V.MAMMAD, S/O.KAMMUTTY HAJI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHELEMBRA
4. CHELEMBRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
5. ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.MOHAMMED
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
For Respondent :SRI.E.NARAYANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :07/01/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 35854 OF 2009 (B)
=====================
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner claims to be an owner of a plot of land having an
extent of 3> cents situated in Re.Sy.No.98/16 of Tirurangadi
Taluk covered by Ext.P1 partition deed. According to the
petitioner, in the said property, he proposes to construct a
building for the purpose of which he made an application to the
4th respondent Panchayat for a building permit.
2. By Ext.P9 order, only for the reason that a civil suit
filed by the 5th respondent as OS No.191/09 before the Munsiff’s
Court, Parappanangadi is pending, his application is declined to
be considered. It is thereupon the writ petition is filed.
3. Although the counsel for the 5th respondent submits
that the suit filed by him is still pending, he accepts that there is
no interim order either in the suit or in the CMA filed by him
before the District Court against the order passed by the Trial
Court declining interim order in his favour. Panchayat also has no
other reason to substantiate their stand taken in Ext.P9.
4. Thus it is obvious that neither in the suit nor in the
WPC 35854/09
:2 :
CMA, is there any order restraining the Panchayat from granting
building permit or restraining the petitioner from constructing any
building in the plot in question. Therefore, the pendency of the
suit can be no reason for the Panchayat to refuse consideration of
the application made by the petitioner.
5. In view of the above, quashing Ext.P9, the 4th
respondent Panchayat is directed to consider the application
made by the petitioner for building permit with notice to the
petitioner and also the 5th respondent. Orders shall be passed as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of receipt of
a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp