Remanded

Muraleedharan Nair v. Secretary Attingal Muncipality

Kerala HC22 Mar 2007WP(C)/4322/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the Tribunal erred in not considering the possibility of regularisation under Rule 143 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules for the petitioner's structure. The petition was remanded to the Municipality to consider regularisation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Regularisation application to be submitted by petitioner within three weeks; Municipality to pass orders within two months; status quo maintained.

Muraleedharan Nair Vs Secretary Attingal Muncipality — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2007 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 4322 of 2007(M)

PETITIONER:

MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, BINDHU NIVAS, AVANANVANCHERY, ATTINGAL.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN DAVIS

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE SECRETARY ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY, ATTINGAL.

¶14

MOHANAN NAIR, BHAVANA, AVANAVANCHERY, ATTINGAL.

¶15

THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.HEMALATHA SRI.R.S.MADHU

¶17

SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN R3 BY ADV. SMT. T.B. RAMANI, GOVT. PLEADER.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

¶20

W.P.(C) No. 4322 OF 2007

¶21

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2007

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard Sri.Sebastian Davids, counsel for the petitioner and Smt.M. Hemalatha, representing Sri.M.R.Anandakuttan, Standing Counsel for Attingal Municipality.

¶24

Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions confirming the demolition order of the Municipality is under challenge when Ext.P3 is gauged by the parameters to be adopted when this Court exercises powers of judicial review on orders passed by judicial Tribunals, it will be difficult to say that Ext.P3 is unreasonable to such an extent as warranting correction under Article 226 or 227.

¶25

Mr.Sebastian Davis further submitted that the petitioner's plot is a small one and perhaps it will be possible for the Municipality to regularise the construction by invoking powers under Rule 143, considering the fact that the building comes under Rule 60 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. I find that the above aspect of the matter is not considered by the Tribunal. Perhaps the above aspect was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal at all.

¶26

Under these circumstances, I relegate the issue back to the Municipality for considering the question whether petitioner's plot is a

¶27

WPC No.4322/2007

¶28

¶29

small plot for the purpose of Chapter VIII and whether the construction put up by the petitioner can be regularised in terms of Rule 143 of the Municipality Building Rules. Decision as directed above will be taken by the Municipality at the earliest and at any rate within two months of receiving copy of this judgment. An application for regularisation will be submitted by the petitioner before the Municipality within three weeks of receiving copy of this judgment and the Municipality will pass orders within two months. The status quo obtaining regarding the shed will be maintained till final orders are passed by the Municipality. Since the party respondent has not entered appearance before this Court, it is not necessary for the Municipality to hear the party respondent before decision is taken on the regularisation application.

¶30

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶31

btt

¶32

WPC No.4322/2007

¶33

Muraleedharan Nair v. Secretary Attingal Muncipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muraleedharan Nair v. Secretary Attingal Muncipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajamuthu Kolpadavu Krshaka Samithi Vs the Dist.Collector, Thrissur & Others

K.Subramanian & Others Vs K.S.R.T.C & Others

M.Rekkubu Kunju Vs K.S.R.T.C

Boutique Hotels India Ltd. Vs Udayamperoor Grama Panchayath

Cherukat Fathima Vs the Edavanna Grama Panchayat

Hemachandran Vs State of Kerala