IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22989 of 2010(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.MOHANAN,SECRETARY,ACE EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BABANISH ARCADE, LOGANS ROAD,THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, ERANHOLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,ERANHOLI PO,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ERANHOLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ERANHOLI PO, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. R3 BY BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.22989/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 26.5.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 5.5.2010 SIGNED ON 26.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE TRUST. P3:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 9.7.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss 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