IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3567 of 2009(Y)
1. N. MUJEEB RAHMAN,
... Petitioner
2. RAJEENA MUJEEB RAHMAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. KEEZHATTUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
3. THE SECRETARY, KEEZHATTUR GRMA
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SUDHEESH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :01/10/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.3567 OF 2009
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioners constructed a building. They applied for
due numbering. That was rejected by the panchayat on the
ground that sufficient set back is not available from the road
margin. The panchayat, in refusing the request for building
permit, took the view apparently on the premise that in terms of
the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, the petitioners
could have saved the building by a procedure of surrendering
some portion of the land. But when the panchayat reached this
Court, with the counter affidavit filed, assured for themselves
that KMBR does not apply and only section 220(b) of the
Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 applies. Incidentally, there is a
certificate on record (Ext.P5), wherein, the Village Officer says
that on legal enquiry, he noticed that the petitioners have
surrendered some portion of their land while the pathway in
question (also called ooduvazhi) was widened using an M.P.fund.
If the petitioners had commenced the construction before any
WPC.3567/09
Page numbers
such widening and if they had actually made land available for
the purpose of widening, the pragmatic decision making process
should lead to a re-conciliation of the dispute. Whatever be the
impact of Section 220(b), or any other modality for the
petitioners to ensure that their construction is within the limits
of law, onething is certain; the decision of the panchayat was not
after duly adverting to and considering all relevant facts and
factors. For this short reason, without expressing anything on
merits, this writ petition is allowed quashing Ext.P6 and
directing that the petitioners’ application will be taken up,
considered and orders issued de novo in accordance with law .
Let this be done within a period of 45 days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.
kkb.3/10.