Panchayat:Repo18/Law Manual Page0328
should also be treated in the same manner and considered as a contiguous plot. – Muthoot Finance Ltd. (M/s.), Kochi v. Corporation of Cochin and Others – 2015 (2) KHC 491 : ILR 2015 (2) Ker. 646 : 2015 (2) KLT 976.
- KPBR R. 2(cc), 6 & 7 - In Dinesan A. v. Vettom Grama Panchayath, Malappuram and Others, the petitioner herein was a resident of the said Grama Panchayat and was aggrieved by the erection of an arch in front of his house, beginning at the junction of the public road leading to the Temple. According to the petitioner, the said arch was causing great inconvenience to the public and was put up without obtaining permission from the Grama Panchayat and prayed for its removal. In this case the court held that once the road is found not to be a thorough fare vesting in the Grama Panchayat, it is difficult, nay legally impossible, to sustain the plea of the petitioner that either the petitioner or any other commuter of the locality has any indefeasible right over the pathway. At the same time, it is not in dispute that even on private properties, if any structures are put up, they require the necessary permission from the civic authorities. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for all the parties concerned in the writ petition, it was held that the petitioner cannot have any objection with regard to the alleged constriction of a passage in a private property. The Court left it open for the fourth and fifth respondents to make necessary application, if they choose to, before the authority concerned seeking regularisation of the structure. -Dinesan A. v. Vettom Grama Panchayath, Malappuram and Others – 2015 (2) KHC 351 : 2015 (2) KLT SN 61: 2015 (2) KLJ 529.
- KERALA PANCHAYAT BUILDING RULES, 2011 - R.18 - Denial of occupancy certificate to applicant cannot be justified in the absence of any concrete material showing encroachment of property. A mere doubt could not defeat substantial right of applicant to enjoy his property. Secretary, Aruvikkara Grama Panchayat v. Anandakumar - 2015 (1) KHC 720 : 2015 (1) KLD 359 : 2015 (1) KLT SN 143.
- This Court in Dharmadom Paristhithi Samrakshana Samithi (supra), having referred to various provisions of the Act, has eventually held that the power to consider and pass orders on application for building permit is exclusively conferred on the Secretary of the Panchayat, that the Committee of the Panchayat gets jurisdiction to consider an application only in a case where reference is made to it under S.235K. It has further held that, if the power is conferred on the Secretary, the same has to be exercised in the manner as provided under S.185B. In other words, the functions are to be discharged independently and solely by the Secretary without any interference or influence by the Panchayat, the President or Chairman of the Standing Committee. – Onset Developers (M/s.), Palakkad v. Secretary, Akathethara Grama Panchayat, Palakkad and Another – 2015 (1) KHC 497 : 2015 (1) KLT 668 : 2015 (1) KLJ 798.
- MUNICIPALITY BUILDING RULES, 1999 (KERALA) -- R.15A(2),R.15A(4) -- Extension and renewal of building permits -- Total valid period of permit shall not exceed nine years either by way of extension or by way of renewal -- Provisions under sub-r.(2) and under sub-r.(4) operate in different fields -- Under sub-r.(4), a renewal can be applied for within one year of the expiry of the permit, but, such renewal can be done only once. New Mahe Grama Panchayath v. P. K. Abdul Rahim - 2014 (4) KHC 933 : 2015 (1) KLT 221 : 2015 (1) KLJ 293.
- KERALA PANCHAYAT BUILDING RULES, 2011 -- R.7(8) - Order permitting to reconstruct a place of worship -- Allegation of non compliance of. R.7(8) of Panchayat Building Rules -- Whether sustainable -- Held, R.7(8) is applicable to proposed constructions in "Security Zone" -- No pleading or material to show that proposed construction is in "Security Zone" -- Hence, allegation of non compliance of R.7(8) is unsustainable. – Thomas Varghese and Others v. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others - 2014 (3) KHC 725 : 2014 (3) KLT 675.
KERALA PANCHAYAT BUILDING RULES, 2011 -- R.27(5) – It is relevant to note that the Commissioner deputed by the Tribunal has not measured out the property on the basis of the title deeds and approved survey plan. Without any such measurement, the Tribunal cannot say that the construction of the petitioner was in violation of the building rules. It is also relevant to note that even the first respondent did not have a case that the petitioner is the encroacher upon his land. His only case was that sufficient space has not been left by the petitioner while making the construction. By making the observations in the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has exceeded its authority vested in it. If the second respondent has a case that the petitioner has encroached upon his property or his compound wall, it shall be open to him to approach a competent Civil Court to get his grievances redressed. If ultimately it is found on the basis of a proper measurement that the building constructed by the petitioner is within the prohibited distance, then the first respondent can annul the regularisation on the basis of such a verdict. Till that time, the order of regularisation issued by the first respondent, who is the competent authority, has to be allowed to stand. Govindarajan v. Pattambi Grama Pa and Another – 2014 (3) KHC 532