Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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