Allowed

Kodur House Plot Owners Asson. v. Kottayam Municipality

Kerala HC30 Nov 2012WP(C)/19978/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged the Kottayam Municipality's failure to construct internal roads and provide public utilities as per plot sale conditions. The Court held the Municipality in breach of contract and directed immediate compliance.

What did the court decide?

The respondent Municipality was directed to construct roads and install electric and water lines within six months of receiving a copy of the judgment.

Kodur House Plot Owners Asson. Vs Kottayam… — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/9TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 19978 of 2008 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. KODUR HOUSE PLOT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, REG. NO. K.733, BUILDING NO. 320, WARD NO.7, KODIMATHA.P.O, KOTTAYAM-2, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.S. PRAMODKUMAR.

¶8

2. THOMAS THOMAS @ THAMPY, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KODIMATHA.P.O, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU

¶10

SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.R.SADEESAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY,KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.P.V.KURIACHAN, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

WP(C)NO.19978/2008

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19/2/1994 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶20

P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PURCHASERS TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY ON 8/3/2000

¶21

P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE COUNCILLOR OF THE WARD TO THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY ON 16/11/06

¶22

P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE WAS SENT ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT ON 22/3/07

¶23

P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/6/07 IN WP(C)NO.1879/07 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶24

P6 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.PW5-6028/79 DATED 4/9/07 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶25

P7 COPY OF THE REPLY VIDE NO.PW5-6028/79 DATED 13/9/07 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶26

P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT ON 17/10/07

¶27

P9 COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE INVITING APPLICATION FOR THE PLOT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶34

-------------------------W.P.(C).NO.19978/2008

¶35

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2012

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

Petitioners are an association of plot owners who

¶38

had purchased separate plots from the respondent Municipality. All the terms and conditions are prescribed in Exhibit P1. The petitioners' main complaint is that the Municipality had not formed any roads which they have agreed to do separating the house plots which were purchased by separate owners as per condition No.2. Still further, it is their contention that Municipality has not provided necessary electric line or water line which they have agreed to provide at the cost of the plot owners as per condition No.3. This matter was agitated on an earlier occasion which resulted in Ext.P5 judgment wherein Municipality was directed to dispose of the representations

¶39

W.P.(C).NO.19978/2008

¶40

¶41

of the petitioners and to pass an order which resulted in Ext.P7, in which it is stated that unless MP/MLA fund is obtained, it may not be possible for the Municipality to construct the road as agreed by them. Ext.P8 is the lawyer's notice issued on behalf of the petitioners to the Municipality. Since there was no reply, this writ petition is filed, seeking a direction to the Municipality to comply with the terms of Ext.P1 especially condition Nos.2 and 3 as early as possible.

¶42

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Municipality inter alia contending that there are roads all around the project and there is access from the road to properties which belongs to the members of Association and that electric and water connections are available in the area. In respect of internal roads it was stated that since those area are lying approximately 2 metres below, it requires huge costs which could be taken up only after raising the adjacent plots.

¶43

Since there was some dispute as to whether roads were in existence in the property and whether there were electric lines to facilitate the owners of the plots to

¶44

W.P.(C).NO.19978/2008 3

¶45

use the same, a commission was appointed. The Advocate commissioner has reported that only 14 plots are having road accessibility and the Commissioner also did not find any electricity line other than a punja line mentioned in the report which will not facilitate providing electricity connection to the plot owners.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent I am of the view that Municipality cannot shirk out from their obligation to comply with the conditions mentioned in Ext. P1. The 56 plot owners have purchased the land in 1994 proceeding on the bonafide belief that the local authority being a self government institution will comply with their obligations under the contract. It is unfortunate to see that after about 2 decades no action had been taken by the Municipality to comply with the conditions under which the plots have been purchased by various plot owners. It is also beyond comprehension that Municipality should wait for either MLA or MP fund for the purpose of complying with terms of a contract. They have already received the funds by way of

¶47

W.P.(C).NO.19978/2008

¶48

¶49

purchase price and failure to discharge the obligation in providing the roads is clearly a breach of contract and since this is an admitted fact the court can definitely interfere and pass appropriate orders. Equally, unsustainable is the view that there is facility to provide electric lines. Infact they have agreed to provide the electric lines and water lines and to recover the proportionate cost from the plot owners. These obligations are to be met by the Municipality as a responsible institution. In that view of the matter the writ petition is disposed of as follows.

¶50

There shall be a direction to the respondent Municipality to take immediate steps to construct road and to put up the electric and water lines as per condition Nos. 2 and 3 in Ext.P1 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.

¶51

Sd/-A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶52

MJL

Kodur House Plot Owners Asson. v. Kottayam Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kodur House Plot Owners Asson. v. Kottayam Municipality

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

M.M.Vargese Vs Kerala Water Authority

Madana Mohanan.K Vs the Manager , Gopal Memorial Vocational

Dr.Gopu Sankar.M Vs State of Kerala and Others

K.Vijayan & Another Vs State of Kerala and Others

S.Lethika Devi Vs State of Kerala

Eliachan P.v.& Another Vs Raju & Others