IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 22338 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYAPRAKASH.T., S/O.BHARATHI AMMA, AGED 44 YEARS, KUTTIMUKKU, RAMAVARMAPURAM.P.O., THRISSUR-680 631. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MADAKATHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ACKARAPPURAM, KURICHIKKARA.P.O., THRISSUR-28, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR FOR R SMT.PREETHI K.PURUSHOTHAMAN FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.22338/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 21.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.15214/2010 DATED 26.5.2010 EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER BEARING THE DATE SEAL 21.5.2010 EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.22338 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner purchased 4.8 cents of land from Sri.A.K.Pareeth as per registered sale deed dated 10.8.2009. He thereafter submitted an application to the Secretary of Madakathara Grama Panchayat for a building permit. It appears Sri.A.K.Pareeth had developed a large parcel of land belonging to him into house plots after laying internal roads. It is one such plot which the petitioner purchased, as per the aforesaid sale deed. Since the area set apart for internal roads had not been surrendered to the Panchayat, the petitioner's application for building permit was not processed. When the application for building permit was kept pending indefinitely, the petitioner has filed W.P(C)No.15214 of 2010 in this Court. Though the respondent Panchayat was served by special messenger, it did not enter appearance and contest the writ petition. In that writ petition the petitioner had sought a direction to the Madakathara Grama Panchayat to consider his application for building permit W.P(C).No.22338 of 2010 -:2:- without waiting for completion of the formalities for relinquishment of the land pertaining to the internal roads which provide access to his property. By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 26.5.2010 the said writ petition was allowed. Shortly thereafter by Ext.P4 order dated 24.6.2010 the Secretary of the Madakathara Grama Panchayat informed the petitioner that the building permit applied for cannot be granted till the lay out is approved. Ext.P4 is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that in view of Ext.P2 judgment of this Court, which is binding on the parties, the Panchayat was bound to consider his application for building permit without insisting on approval of the lay out. 2. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the relinquishment of land by Sri.A.K.Pareeth and the lay out approval required for entertaining an application for building permit are independent and are not connected with each other. It is contended that unless the lay out is approved, the building permit applied for cannot be granted. 3. I heard Sri.P.Gopinatha Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.Anil Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings W.P(C).No.22338 of 2010 -:3:- and the materials on record. It is evident from the pleadings that the only objection to the grant of building permit is that the lay out has not been approved. As noticed earlier, the petitioner purchased a small extent of 5 cents of land from Sri.A.K.Pareeth, who had developed a large tract of land, approximately 2 acres in extent, into house plots by laying internal roads. He has also offered to surrender the land earmarked as internal roads to the respondent Grama Panchayat. But however, the relinquishment has not yet attained finality. The petitioner moved this Court by filing W.P(C)No.15214 of 2010 seeking a direction to the respondent Grama Panchayat to consider his application for building permit without waiting for completion of the formalities for relinquishment of the land pertaining to the internal roads which provide access to his land. By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 26.5.2010 that writ petition was allowed and the Secretary of the Madakathara Grama Panchayat was directed to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner and finalise the action within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of Ext.P2 judgment. Ext.P2 judgment, which is binding on the respondent, has attained finality. It is brought to my notice that though a review petition was attempted (R.P.No.580 of 2010) the only W.P(C).No.22338 of 2010 -:4:- relief sought by the Panchayat in that review petition was to delete the second para of the judgment, wherein it was recorded that inspite of service of notice by special messenger, the Panchayat had not entered appearance. The review petition was allowed. In other words, the Panchayat, which was aware of the direction in Ext.P2 judgment to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner without waiting for the completion of the formalities for relinquishment of the land pertaining to the internal roads providing access to the petitioner's land, did not seek a review of the said judgment on the merits. Instead, the Panchayat only sought to delete an observation in the judgment that in spite of service of notice by special messenger, the Panchayat had not entered appearance. Ext.P2 judgment has attained finality. So long as Ext.P2 judgment stands, the Panchayat cannot be heard to contend that unless the lay out of the internal roads, which provide access to the petitioner's land wherein he proposes to construct the building, is approved, a building permit cannot be issued. In such circumstances I am constrained to hold that Ext.P4 order passed by the Secretary of the respondent Grama Panchayat is one which is really in contempt of this Court. I accordingly allow this writ petition, quash Ext.P4 and direct the W.P(C).No.22338 of 2010 -:5:- Secretary of the respondent Grama Panchayat to issue a building permit to the petitioner on the application which was the subject matter of Ext.P4, expeditiously and in any event within two weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.22338 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 7th September, 2010