AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R.Ravi, J
The petitioner owns 0.0810 Hectors of land which is not included in the data bank. He had applied for permission for construction of a residential
building in the property, to the Local Level Monitoring Committee. By Ext.P2 proceedings, the petitioner was permitted to convert 0.0404 Hectors of
land for the purpose, from out of his total extent. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for a building permit to the Panchayat and by Ext.P3 the building
permit was granted for construction of a residential building of 446.91 Sq. Metres building area. Ext.P3 is the building permit. It can be seen from the
approved plan attached to Ext.P3 that the plot is in a triangular shape and the construction is sought to be effected in the rectangular area within the
said plot, leaving out the other areas. The construction is completed and the petitioner applied for numbering of the building. By Ext.P4, the Panchayat
informed the petitioner that the plan shows KLU boundary and hence the petitioner has to obtain a sketch regarding the KLU boundary from the
revenue officers. Reference is made to a letter from the Assistant Engineer on this aspect. The petitioner submits that no such sketches are being
issued by the concerned authorities and such a sketch is also not provided for in the relevant laws.
The Panchayat has filed a statement reiterating the reasons stated in Ext.P4 and it is submitted that if the anomaly is rectified, they have no
objection to grant a building number. It is also pointed out that there is yet another anomaly as regards Section 27A wherein exemption for
construction is only for an area of 140 Sq.Metres for residential purposes.
After considering the contentions put forward by the petitioner and the respondents, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in
this writ petition. In Ext.P5(2) issued by the Principal Agricultural Office, Palakkad, it is stated that the petitioner was granted permission for effecting
construction, after the Local Level Monitoring Committee, which included the Agricultural Officer and Village Officer, had inspected the land. When
the above fact is affirmed by the Officers who had issued Ext.P2, there was no necessity for the Panchayat to once again seek clarification regarding
a KLU boundary for which there is no provision in law.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The direction in Ext.P4 to the petitioner to submit a sketch obtained from the Revenue Officers is set aside.
The 1st and 2nd respondents are directed to assess and number the building constructed by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P2, if the construction is
otherwise in order and in accordance with the plan submitted. Necessary orders shall be issued within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.