Allowed

B.Balakrishnan v. the Palakkad Municipality

Kerala HC24 May 2012WP(C)/1340/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, Justice Antony Dominic quashed an order rejecting a building permit application on the ground that the land was classified as paddy land in the Master plan. The Court held that since the Municipality had not taken any further action in pursuance of the Master plan and could not establish the land was paddy land, the rejection was illegal.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 (the communication refusing the building permit) was quashed, and the Municipality was directed to reconsider the petitioner's application within eight weeks.

B.Balakrishnan Vs the Palakkad Municipality — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2012/3RD JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 1340 of 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

B. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.BALASUBRAMANIAN, AGED 34 YEARS, 42/373(1) SREERAM STREET, KARNAKI NAGAR, VADAKKANTHARA P.O., PALAKKAD- 678 012.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SMT.P.G.BABITHA.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶12

PALAKKAD P.O., 678 101.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY,

¶14

PALAKKAD P.O., 678 101.

¶15

3. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON,

¶17

SRI.P.S.APPU, SRI.A.R.NIMOD. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

rs.

¶20

WP(C).No. 1340 of 2012 (N)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶23

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.890/2011 OF S.R.O., PALAKKAD.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAD I VILLAGE DATED 06.12.2011.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF A COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.EJBR/780/11-12/PW4 DATED 07.01.2012 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO. 16463/2010.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.1340 of 2012

¶30

Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2012

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Heard both sides.

¶33

Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 whereby an application made

¶34

by for the building permit has been rejected by the first respondent on the ground that the land in question has been classified as a paddy land in the Master plan approved by the Government. It is also stated that in view of the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 11.11.2009, the Municipality is unable to grant any exemption in the matter. Petitioner challenges the order on the basis that the Master plan was approved long back in the past and that nothing further has been done by any authorities and therefore, the fact that the Master plan is approved should not be to his prejudice. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on this Court's judgment in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999(3) KLT 465) in support of this contention.

¶35

W.P.(C)No.1340 of 2012 2

¶36

The respondents have no case that in pursuance to the Master plan relied on any further action was taken by them. If that be so, as held by this Court, a citizen cannot be prevented from making use of the land owned by him. That apart, it should also be noticed that the Municipality has no case that the land in question is a paddy land. In such a case, I am persuaded to think that the rejection of the application made by the petitioner for building permit is illegal.

¶37

For these reasons, I quash Ext.P4 and direct the Municipality to reconsider the application made by the petitioner and pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as

¶38

possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶40

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶41

B.Balakrishnan v. the Palakkad Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Balakrishnan v. the Palakkad Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thankamma Kesavan Vs Rajkumar Singh

Shaji Poolath Vs R.Rajesh

Abdul Rasheed K.M. Vs Dr.S.Pradeepkumar

M/S. Kerala State Construction Corporation Vs State of Kerala

C.a.Ibrahim Vs the Mangalpady Grama Panchayath

C.K.Sivadas Vs District Collector