Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High 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