Remanded

Mohamed Subair.H v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Aug 2008WP(C)/16922/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the petitioner could not seek a building permit based on a revised master plan as it was not yet finalised. The court directed the Principal Secretary to finalise and publish the plan within three months and directed the Corporation to consider the permit application thereafter.

What did the court decide?

2nd respondent directed to finalise and publish revised master plan within 3 months; 4th respondent directed to consider building permit application thereafter.

Mohamed Subair.H Vs State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 16922 of 2008(M) -------------------------PETITIONER(S): ------------------

¶4

1. H.MOHAMED SUBAIR, AGED 39 YEARS PO.BOX.3258, JEBEL ALI, DUBAI, U.A.E. REP. BY H.M.ZUBIRE,SUCHITHRA, MANSOAP JUNCTION, BEACH NORTH, KOLLAM-691006

¶5

2. HAJI MOHAMED ZUBIRE AGED 72 YEARS, SUCHITHRA, MAMMNSHOP JN., BEACH NORTH, KOLLAM-691006

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR

¶7

RESPONDENT(S): -------------------

¶8

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM

¶9

2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT(E) SECTION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM

¶11

4. SECRETARY,KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM

¶12

5. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, C.T.P.OFFICE, KOTTARATHIL BUILDINGS, PALAYAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶13

6. TOWN PLANNER, DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, CORPORATION COMPLEX, CHINNAKADA, KOLAM.

¶14

7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM.

¶15

ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR R4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WPC NO.16922/08

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1 & P1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEEDS.

¶21

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY.

¶22

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR DATED 30TH NOVEMBER, 2006.

¶23

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE PUBLICATION DT 12.2.2008.

¶24

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY UNDER SECRETARY FOR AND ONBEHALF OF PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DT 11.1.2007.

¶25

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 19.5.2006 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION.

¶26

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE LOCALITY AND THE CONNECTING ROAD.

¶27

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR BY THE PETITIONER DT 6.3.2008.

¶28

EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATATION DT 27.3.2008 GIVEN TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶29

EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATATION GIVEN TO THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT 2.4.2008.

¶30

EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATATION GIVEN TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, KOLLAM DT 10.4.2008.

¶31

EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DT 2.7.2005 GIVEN BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT.

¶32

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶33

//TRUE COPY//

¶34

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶35

==============

¶36

W.P.(C) NO. 16922 OF 2008 (M)

¶37

====================

¶38

Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2008

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

The petitioners complaint is that revision of the master plan with a decision to reduce the width of Kollam Pukayilapandakasala (Mulakada) - Vaddi Road from 25 to 15 metres is to be implemented and that in the light of the plan so revised, Ext.P3 application made by him for building permit should be considered.

¶41

It has now come out and it is also seen from Ext.P5 that the revised master plan is pending consideration of the Government of Kerala and that the revised plan is yet to be finalised and published. Therefore, unless and until the revised master plan is finalised and published, the petitioner cannot seek consideration of his application for building permit in the light of the revised plan. Hence, what is required at this stage is to make respondents 1 and 2 to finalise and publish the revised master plan formulated for Kollam Corporation area.

¶42

In view of the above, the 2^nd respondent is directed to finalise and publish the revised master plan concerning Kollam Corporation area, which is mentioned in Ext.P5 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate

¶43

WPC 16922/08

¶44

:2 :

¶45

within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment. Depending on the revised master plan that is finalised and published, it is directed that the 4^th respondent shall consider Ext.P3 or any supplementary application

¶46

which the petitioner, may file for building permit concerning his land.

¶47

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶48

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶49

Mohamed Subair.H v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Subair.H v. State of Kerala

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

Lakshmi Devi.K.P. Vs Mydhily

K.R.Krishnan Nair Vs Pradeep Kumar

Komalam Gopi Vs T.K.Mohankumar

K.v.Chandran Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Krishna Pillai Vs the District Co-Operative Bank

M.Ramakrishnan Vs Senior Inspector/Special Sales Officer