Hardship That Was Not Foreseen At The Time Of Entering The Contract Cannot Be A Ground To Deny Specific Performance:  Supreme Court Of India Transfers Made to Defeat the Ceiling Act Are Void Under Sections 8 and 10: Supreme Court Upholds Decisions Declaring Surplus Land Transfers Invalid Compromise Decree Affirming Pre-Existing Rights Requires No Registration or Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Criticizes Arbitrary Termination and Misuse of Temporary Contracts: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Long-Serving Temporary Employees Partition During Owner’s Lifetime Invalid Under Mohammedan Law: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Over Alleged Oral Gift and Partition Time Gap Between Alleged Act and Suicide Nullifies Link to Abetment: Supreme Court Quashes Abetment to Suicide Charges Hindu Succession Act Does Not Apply to Scheduled Tribes Unless Notified: Supreme Court Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act Protection Cannot Be Invoked Without Proof of Written Contract and Performance Obligations: Supreme Court Reinvestigation Post-Acquittal Violates Double Jeopardy Safeguards: Supreme Court Victim’s Majority and Consensual Relationship Prima Facie Established: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Madras High Court Validates Registered Will, Labels Subsequent Unregistered Will as Shrouded with Suspicion Confession Under Section 67 NDPS Act Must Be Voluntary, True, and Corroborated to Sustain Conviction: Delhi High Court Failure to Upload Names Cannot Debar Benefits – Calcutta High Court Orders Approval of Accompanists as SACT-II Compromise Invalid in POCSO Offenses: Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail in Child Rape Case Right to Reputation Cannot Be Compromised by Baseless Allegations: Digital Platforms Must Act Responsibly: Delhi High Court Parity Principle Justifies Bail When Similarly Placed Co-Accused Have Been Released: P&H Court Presumption of Innocence is Paramount: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Acid Attack Case No Direct Employer-Employee Relationship Established: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Workman’s Claim for Reinstatement Under ID Act Promissory Note Alone Can't Prove Debt: Kerala High Court Highlights Need for Credible Evidence Confessions By Co-Accused Cannot Form Sole Basis For Indictment Without Independent Evidence: Bombay High Court Quashes Prosecution in 1993 Communal Riot Case Sanctioning Authority Must Independently Apply Its Mind; A Mechanical Approval Cannot Justify Prosecution: Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Supreme Court Slams Punjab Government For Failing To Shift Hunger-Striking Farmer Leader To Hospital

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

Similar News