Allowed

Jayaprakash P.M. v. Secretary, Vatakara Municipality

Kerala HC6 Jul 2012WP(C)/2649/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner built a structure relying on a government exemption and building permit later cancelled by the government. The Municipality issued a demolition notice. The Court held that demolition cannot follow for work done substantially completed in reliance on the initial orders. The notice was quashed and the petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 (notice of demolition) is quashed; writ petition allowed; petitioner permitted to retain the constructed building.

Jayaprakash P.M. Vs Secretary, Vatakara Municipality — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2012/15TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 2649 of 2008 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JAYAPRAKASH.P.M., S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 40 YEARS, TEACHER, RESIDING AT KAPLIKANDIYIL, VILLIAPPALLY AMSOM, MAYYANNUR DESOM, POST MAYYANNUR, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.B.KRISHNAN, SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. SECRETARY, VADAKARA MUNICIPALITY, VADAKARA.

¶11

2. SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, TRIVANDRUM.

¶12

3. STATE OF KERALA-WITH ADDRESS FOR SERVICES-SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR, R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M. MUHAMMED SHAFI.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C).NO.2649/2008-M

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DTD. 21/04/2006.

¶19

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE EXEMPTION ORDER BY GOVT. DTD. 24/11/05.

¶20

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BY THE R.1. DTD. 21/11/2007.

¶21

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 01/09/2007REVOKING ORDERS LIKE EXHIBIT P.2 BASED ON JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN O.P. 8740/97 DTD. 07/11/2005.

¶22

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.8740/97 (S) REFERRED TO IN EXHIBIT P.4.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.2649 of 2008

¶29

Dated this the 6^th day of July, 2012

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Ext.P2 is a Government Order dated 24.11.2005, granting exemption to the petitioner from the provisions of the zoning regulations for the construction of a double storied building. Based on that order, the Municipality issued Ext.P1 building permit dated 21.04.2006. Accordingly, petitioner constructed a building. In the meanwhile, in Ext.P5 judgment of this Court in O.P.No.8740 of 1997, this Court held that the Government had no power to grant exemption such as Ext.P2. On that basis, Government issued Ext.P4 order dated 01.09.2007 cancelling Ext.P2. In pursuance thereof, the Municipality issued Ext.P3, notice of demolition dated 21.11.2007. It is challenging this notice, the writ petition is filed.

¶32

I heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel

¶33

appearing for the Municipality.

¶34

W.P.(C).No.2649/2012

¶35

: 2 :

¶36

The case of the petitioner is that by the time Exts.P3 and P4 were issued, the building was already substantially

¶37

completed and that by now the building is a fully completed one. According to him, therefore, the building is not liable to be demolished as ordered by the Municipality.

¶38

If the petitioner has proceeded to construct the building on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2, the fact that these orders were subsequently cancelled, can be no reason to demolish the structure already constructed by them. If that be

¶39

so, I am unable to uphold Ext.P3. Therefore, I quash Ext.P3 and allowed the writ petition permitting the petitioner to retain building as already constructed..

¶40

Writ petition is allowed.

¶41

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶42

Jayaprakash P.M. v. Secretary, Vatakara Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaprakash P.M. v. Secretary, Vatakara Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.M.I.Shihabudheen Vs v.M.Shamsudheen

Paulose Vs National Highway Authority of India

Abdul Majeed Vs the State of Kerala

Siddique Kalathil Vs Sobhana Kamala Sudarsana Rao

Rema N.K. Vs M.Nandakumar

Abdul Samad Vs the Director, Vigilance & Anti Corrupti