Petitioner challenged rejection of commercial building permit due to Zonal Regulations. Court held application for reconsideration must be met after quashing impugned order.
Impugned order communicated on Ext.P3 quashed. Direction given to re-examine application within two months after hearing petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932
WP(C).No. 11260 of 2010(F) --------------------------
PETITIONER(S): ---------------
VINESHKUMAR.K.K., KOLATHUR KUNNATH HOUSE, MALMURI P.O.-676 514, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
RESPONDENT(S):
ADV. SRI.ABDUL MAJEED.N SC FOR R2 AND R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.M.SURESH BABU FOR R1 AND R4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.11260/2010-F
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Herein the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings whereby the application for grant of building permit for commercial purposes stands turned down by the Municipality on the basis of the Zonal regulations. Ext.P3 is the said communication. It is pointed out therein that as per the regulations, it is shown as paddy agricultural zone and, accordingly, it would violate Rule 30(1) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules.
W.P.(C). No.11260/2010
-:2:-
the area has to be retained as a wet agricultural zone cannot be supported.
W.P.(C). No.11260/2010
-:3:-
learned counsel for the petitioner. The requirement of the Municipality would have found a place in the Zonal Regulations. What is argued is that it was not made operational at any point of time which is evident from the fact that so many commercial buildings and residential houses have been constructed in the area. It is pointed out that as the petitioner was allowed to convert the holding as evident from Ext.P4, the same is a matter for consideration by the local authority also.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms
\TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Municipality acted with jurisdiction in rejecting the building permit application based on Zonal Regulations.
Whether the area in question, permitted by Revenue Divisional Officer for land use conversion, should be considered wet agricultural zone.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vineshkumar.K.K.
State of Kerala
District Town Planner, Malappuram
Malappuram Municipality
District Collector, Malappuram
T.R. Ramachandran Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
