MUHAMMED SALI Vs. OCHIRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

(2.) Petitioner claims to be the owner of a property having an extent of 3.03 Ares of land comprised in RS No. 30/3-6 in Block No. 4 of Ochira Village, which he acquired by Ext. P1. He made an application to the respondent Panchayat for a building permit. Panchayat says that they forwarded the application to the 3rd respondent. By Ext. P6, the 3rd respondent submits that the proposal of the petitioner does not satisfy the distance rule specified in Ext. P7 GO (Ms) No. 18/2011 / PWD dated 01/03/11. Therefore, he declined his no objection. On that basis, the application made by the petitioner was rejected and that was communicated to him by Ext. P5.

(3.) In Peer Mohammed v. Chirakandam Grama Panchayat, 2008 (3) KHC 261 : 2008 (3) KLT 300 : 2008 (2) KLJ 856 : ILR 2008 (3) Ker. 333, this Court has held that fixation of building line and control line as per the provisions of Kerala Highway Protection Act requires a notification or paper publication as prescribed under S.18(2) thereof. In this case, what is relied on is only Ext. P7, a Government Order which does not satisfy the requirements of S.18(2). Even apart from that, Ext. P7 contains only recommendations and it concludes by stating that necessary modifications will be made to the Highway Protection Act and the Building Rules. These recommendations are yet to be carried out. Therefore, at this stage, Ext. P7 could not have been relied on against the petitioner to decline his application for building permit.