2025:KER:23890 WP(C) NO. 5059 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 5059 OF 2025 PETITIONERS: 1 ANIM AROMAL, AGED 25 YEARS S/O.ANIL.P.BOSE, PALIYATH HOUSE, KOLERI.P.O., WAYANAD, PIN - 673596 2 DHYANCHAND BOSE, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.ANIL.P.BOSE, PALIYATH HOUSE, KOLERI.P.O., WAYANAD, PIN - 673596 BY ADVS. RAJESH VIJAYAN SIKHA S.NAIR JUBAIRIYA T. RESPONDENTS: 1 POOTHADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POOTHADI, KENICHIRA.P.O., WAYANAD, PIN - 673596 2025:KER:23890 WP(C) NO. 5059 OF 2025 2 2 THE SECRETARY, POOTHADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, POOTHADI, KENICHIRA.P.O., WAYANAD, PIN - 673596 BY ADV NIRMAL V NAIR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:23890 WP(C) NO. 5059 OF 2025 3 JUDGMENT The petitioners are the owners of shop room Nos.14/67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 74-A, and 74-B within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent Panchayat. The property wherein the said shop rooms are situated, was owned by the grandfather of the petitioners by name Sri. Chandrabose. In the year 2008, the said Chandrabose executed two gift deeds in favour of the petitioners, by assigning the said properties to the petitioners. Thereafter, recently they submitted an application for changing the ownership of the buildings in the property in the name of the petitioners. However, the said application was rejected by the 2nd respondent as per Exts.P3 and P5 pointing out certain discrepancies. 2. As per Ext.P5, it was intimated that, some of the buildings are not mentioned in the title deeds of the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners are required to get a correction deed executed by the previous owner of the said property. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances being aggrieved by the 2025:KER:23890 WP(C) NO. 5059 OF 2025 4 same. 3. I have heard Sri.Rajesh Vijayan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri.Nirmal V. Nair, learned Counsel for the respondents. 4. The specific contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, as far as the buildings which were referred to Ext.P3 are concerned , the same were constructed after the execution of the gift deeds and that is the reason why the said buildings are not included among the buildings in the gift deeds referred to above. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out that, even after the execution of the gift deeds in the year 2008, the Ext.P2 building permit happened to be issued in the name of the previous owner, in the year 2011. In view of this reason, the clarifications were sought in Ext.P5. 5. After considering all the relevant materials, I am of the view that merely because a permit happened to be issued in the 2025:KER:23890 WP(C) NO. 5059 OF 2025 5 name of the previous owner, as evidenced by Ext.P2, that cannot be a reason to insist on a correction deed from the petitioners. What is to be considered by the 2nd respondent Secretary while considering an application for change of ownership is whether the petitioners are in lawful ownership of the property in question. The documents which are to be produced by the person who seeking for transfer of ownership are specifically referred to in Rule 23 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Building Tax Service Tax and Surcharge Rules) 2011. In this case, according to the petitioners they have derived the title over the property by virtue of two gift deeds executed by the previous owner who is none other than the grandfather of the petitioners. It is also pointed out that, grandfather is also prepared to execute an affidavit in support and to substantiate the right of the petitioners. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, an interference is required. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P5 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application 2025:KER:23890 WP(C) NO. 5059 OF 2025 6 submitted by the petitioners for change of ownership and to take a decision on the same based on the title documents submitted by the petitioners and the affidavit, if any, submitted by the grandfather of the petitioners, the previous owner of the said property. While considering the same, it is also to be noted that, the petitioners have carried out the construction on the basis of the permit issued by the 2nd respondent. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE scs 2025:KER:23890 WP(C) NO. 5059 OF 2025 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5059/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1999/2/2008 EXECUTED BY CHANDRABOSE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 11.01.2011. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 04.12.2024. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.