Disposed

Dr. Raju v. the Koothattukulam Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC28 May 2012WP(C)/1272/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to revoke a building permit issued to respondents and direct ensuring mandatory open space. Court refused to interfere with permit but made an interim order absolute directing construction compliant with Building Rules while leaving open space.

What did the court decide?

Interim order directing respondents to ensure construction leaves mandatory open space per Building Rules was made absolute.

Dr. Raju Vs the Koothattukulam Grama Panchayath — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2012/7TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 1272 of 2012 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DR. RAJU, S/O MATHEW, AGED 38 YEARS, MELVETTATHU HOUSE, MARANGATTUPPILLY KARA, ILAKKATTU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE KOOTHATTUKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 662.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY, KOOTHATTUKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 662.

¶12

3. DEEPTHY,

¶13

W/O JAIJY, ERAMBADATHIL HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 802, BLUE LAGOON APARTMENT, CHILAVANOOR ROAD, COCHIN-20.

¶14

4. JAJY MATHEW, ERAMBADATHIL HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 802, BLUE LAGOON APARTMENT, CHILAVANOOR ROAD, COCHIN-20.

¶15

5. REJI MON P. ALEX, S/O CHANDI, PADIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM KARA, KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE- 686 662.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, R3 & R4 BY ADVS.SRI.H.B.SHENOY, SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY, SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY, R5 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C).NO.1272/2012-H:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXHIBIT-P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO.973/2001 OF KOOTHATTUKULAM SRO DATED 17.7.2001.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.11.2009 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 19.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P4. A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.3.2011 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P5. A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.4.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P6. A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMOUN JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23384/2009 AND WPC 19301/2009 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 29.10.2009.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P7. A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT-P8. A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DISCUSSIONS HELD BY RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ON 26.2.2010 WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT-P9. A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.1.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT-P10. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15.9.2011 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT-P11. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4.10.2011.

¶32

EXHIBIT-P12. COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE R.4. HEREIN IN O.S. 509/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶33

EXT.P.13. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 07/01/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.2. FOR A HEARING IN PURSUANCE OF EXHIBIT P.2. REPRESENTATION.

¶34

EXT.P.14. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 14/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.2.

¶35

EXT.P.15. COPY OF THE QUERY MADE BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 06/07/2011.

¶36

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/03/2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA IN I.A. NO. 3076/2009 IN O.S. NO. 509/2010.

¶38

EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30/11/2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA AS C.M.A. NO. 7/2010.

¶39

W.P.(C).NO.1272/2012-H:

¶40

EXT.R3.C:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 01/04/2011 IN O.P.(C).NO.905/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.R5.A:	COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT.
EXT.R5.B:	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. 12/2010 DTD. 15/12/2010 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, KOOTHATTUKULAM.
EXT.R5.C:	COPY OF THE APPLICATION.
EXT.R5.D:	COPY OF THE VARIOUS SIGNATURES PUT BY R.4. AT VARIOUS LEVELS WHICH WAS PRODUCED ALONG WITH APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR VIGILANCE ENQUIRY BY SRI. A.T. JOSE.
EXT.R5.E:	COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR COMPROMISE FILED IN W.P.(C). NO.19301/09.
EXT.R5.F:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 29/10/09 IN W.P.(C).NO.23384/09.
EXT.R5.G:	COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.1.
EXT.R5.H:	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. A1-273/10 DT.D 19/1/10 ISSUED BY R.1. TO R.4.
EXT.R5.I:	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 21/05/09 ISSUED BY THE ARBITRATOR.
EXT.R5.J:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 12/06/10 SUBMITTED BEFORE R.1.
EXT.R5.K:	COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE .4. BY THE R.1.
EXT.R5.L:	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 30/12/09 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT TO THE R.1.
EXT.R5.M:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 20/06/11 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.1.
EXT.R5.N:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY A.T. JOSE, BEFORE THE R.1.

¶41

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.1272 of 2012

¶47

Dated this the 28^th day of May, 2012

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

Petitioner seeks revocation of Ext.P3 building permit issued in favour of respondents 3 and 4 and also to direct respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the construction by the third respondent shall be made after leaving the mandatory open space from the building of the petitioner. I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P3 for the reason that if aggrieved, petitioner is free to invoke the statutory remedy of the appeal.

¶50

However, insofar as, the latter portion of the prayer noticed above is concerned, this Court has already passed an interim order on 17.01.2012, which reads as under:

¶51

“ Heard. Admitted. Issue notice to respondents. Ext.P10 shows that even according to Panchayat, it the building is constructed in accordance with the permit, the building is likely to touch petitioner's building situated on western side. Hence, interim direction is issued to respondents nos.1 and 2 to ensure that construction of the building is made in accordance with law, leaving open space as required under the Building Rules, from the petitioner's building on the western side, until further orders.”

¶52

W.P.(C)No.1272 of 2012 2

¶53

Having regard to the provisions of the Building Rules,

¶54

any construction has to be in compliance with such Rules. Therefore, the aforesaid interim order safeguards the interest of the petitioner.

¶55

Consequently, making the interim order absolute, this writ petition is closed.

¶56

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶57

Dr. Raju v. the Koothattukulam Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Raju v. the Koothattukulam Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.N.Ramachandran Vs Chottanikkara Gramapanchayath

Abdul Russak Vs Pathanamthitta Municipality and Another

C.K. Thankappan Vs the State of Kerala

P.v.Damodara Poduval Vs Special Tahsildar La

Kider Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Baby Girija Vs State of Kerala