Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

Unauthorized Construction Cannot Stand: High Court on Kerala Property Dispute

30 December 2024 1:28 PM

By: sayum


The court upheld the Panchayat’s decision to cancel permits for illegal constructions, emphasizing adherence to building regulations. The High Court of Kerala has delivered a significant judgment on a contentious property dispute in Ulikkal Grama Panchayat. The case involved allegations of unauthorized constructions and permit violations. Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., who presided over the matter, underscored the importance of adhering to building permits and the legal ramifications of unauthorized constructions.

The dispute revolved around a property spanning 32.9 cents in Ulikkal Grama Panchayat, initially owned by eight individuals. Over time, parts of this property were transferred to different parties, leading to shared ownership between the original owners and the new assignees. The conflict began when it was alleged that one of the parties converted a designated parking area into a 14-room building without proper authorization. A permit had been granted for this construction on 23.11.2020, but the permit failed to disclose that the construction area was intended for parking, leading the Panchayat to cancel the permit upon discovering the discrepancy.

The court observed that the construction on the parking area, initially permitted on 15.04.2017, was unauthorized and thus illegal. Justice Nias remarked, “The construction effected as per Permit No. BA 321/16-7 dated 15.04.2017 in the parking area of the first permit is held to be illegal and the action of the Panchayat in that regard cancelling the permit and the numbers assigned, cannot be said to be illegal.”

The court noted that attempts were made to mediate the dispute, but they were unsuccessful as one of the parties withdrew from the mediation. Consequently, a civil suit for partition (O.S.No.108/2023) is pending, which will ultimately decide the proprietary rights of the parties involved.

The judgment emphasized the importance of following legal procedures for building constructions and permits. It highlighted that any unauthorized alterations or constructions render the initial permits void. The court directed that any further occupancy or utilization of the building would require regularization through appropriate legal channels.

Justice Nias stated, “The only option available for the person who has put up the building is either to demolish the unauthorized construction or offer a similar parking area.” He further added, “The direction of the Tribunal to treat the application submitted for numbering the building as one for partial occupancy is wrong since the construction as per the first permit has been rendered Illegal by the unlawful construction of its parking area.”

The High Court’s ruling reaffirms the significance of adhering to building regulations and obtaining proper permits. By upholding the Panchayat’s decision to cancel the illegal construction permits, the court has set a precedent for future property disputes. This judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications, reinforcing the necessity for property owners and developers to comply with legal standards to avoid similar conflicts.

Date of Decision: 24th July, 2024

Latest Legal News