Disposed

Aryan Namboodiri v. Thrissur Corporation

Kerala HC22 May 2013WP(C)/7760/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of building permit due to previous owner's subdivision of property without layout approval. Court directed regularization application which, if approved, ensures a fresh order for building permit.

What did the court decide?

To direct the second respondent to consider a proper application for regularization and a fresh application for building permit.

Aryan Namboodiri Vs Thrissur Corporation — Partition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2013/1ST JYAISHTA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 7760 of 2013 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ARYAN NAMBOODIRI, AMBATTUMANA, IRUMPANAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR-680001.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR-680001.

¶12

3. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR-680001.

¶13

R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR R1-R3 BY ADV. SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI R1-R3 BY ADV. SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.N.HARIDAS

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 7760 of 2013 (T) ---------------------------

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

----------

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3094/2007 DATED 10.05.2007 OF S.R.O.AYYANTHOLE.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PLPAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14-03-2013 SERVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J -------------------------------W.P.(C). No. 7760 of 2013

¶28

Dated this the 22^nd Day of May 2013

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner has filed this writ petition

¶31

aggrieved by Ext.P3 proceedings of the 1^st respondent by which an application for building permit submitted by him has been rejected. The reason for rejection is that without obtaining a layout approval from the 2^nd respondent, the property owned by the petitioner has been subdivided into different plots.

¶32

Adv. Sri. K.P. Vijayan appears for the respondents. According to the counsel, the previous owner of the petitioner's property had subdivided the property into different plots without getting permission from the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, a similar application for building permit submitted by him had been rejected earlier. It was knowing fully well of the factum of such rejection that the petitioner had submitted his application, it is pointed out. Therefore, it is contended that it is not possible to grant

¶33

W.P.(C). No. 7760 of 2013 2

¶34

permission to make any further construction, in the face of the violation of Rule 27 already committed by the previous owner.

¶35

Adv. Sri. C.M. Suresh Babu who appears for the petitioner counters the above contentions by pointing out that the petitioner had not done any act in contravention of the Rules and that he should not be made liable for the illegality if any committed by the previous owner. If the subdivision of the property into different plots was undertaken without obtaining necessary permission from the corporation, it is submitted that the petitioner is ready to submit a proper application for regularization of such act. The counsel also places reliance of Rule 143 of the Kearla Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred as the building rules for short).

¶36

Heard. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has purchased the property only in the year 2007 and that the alleged illegality in dividing the property into plots without the permission of the corporation was done by the

¶37

W.P.(C). No. 7760 of 2013 3

¶38

previous owner. The petitioner is willing to submit a proper application for the purpose of regularizing the said illegality. I notice that the 2^nd respondent has the necessary power to grant such regularization under Rule 143 of the Building Rules. Since Ext.P3 has been passed for the only reason that the property has been subdivided without obtaining approval of the layout, if the said illegality is regularized, the petitioner would be entitled to have his application for building permit considered afresh.

¶39

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of as follows.

¶40

The petitioner is directed to submit a proper application under Rule 143 of the Rules for the purpose of regularizing the illegality committed by his previous owner of not obtaining prior approval for the lay out of his property.

¶41

On receipt of such application, the 2^nd respondent shall consider the same in

¶42

W.P.(C). No. 7760 of 2013 4

¶43

accordance with law and shall pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two weeks of the submission of such application.

¶44

If the lay out plan submitted by the petitioner is approved, the 2^nd respondent shall consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner afresh, notwithstanding Ext.P3 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of one month therefrom.

¶45

Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶46

Aryan Namboodiri v. Thrissur Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aryan Namboodiri v. Thrissur Corporation

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

M/S.Pts Hotels India Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Balan Vs the General Manager, Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Renjith K.V. Vs Thrissur Corporation

Mithun Davis Vs Cheranalloor Grama Panchayath

Gireesh Vs Kottankara Grama Panchayat

Abdul Majeed Vs Vellimunda Grama Panchayath