Two petitioners challenged an order rejecting their application to construct a commercial building. The High Court set aside the rejection, holding that an unimplemented Town Planning Scheme cannot prevent property use.
Ext.P2 set aside; Respondent directed to consider application afresh and pass orders within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2013/31ST VAISAKHA 1935
WP(C).No. 8134 of 2013 (N)
PETITIONER(S):
1. RENJITH K.V., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.K.P.VISWANATHAN, VASANTH NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 021.
2. SANJITH K.V.,AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.K.P.VISWANATHAN, VASANTH NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 021.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE BUILDING, THRISSUR-680 001.
*ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED:
R2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO LOCAL
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN, SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
WPC.NO.8134/2013 N
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
K.SURENDRA MOHAN , J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.8134 Of 2013
--------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF MAY, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P2 proceedings of the 1st respondent rejecting their application for permission to construct a commercial building in their property. The application has been rejected on the ground
that as per the Detailed Town Planning Scheme (hereinafter referred to as `the D.T.P Scheme') applicable to the Corporation, the area is included in the residential zone and therefore no permission could be granted to construct commercial building over the same.
WPC.No.8134/13 -2-
are already in existence. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, rejection of the petitioners' request on the said ground is submitted to be unsustainable. Therefore, they seek the issue of appropriate orders setting aside Ext.P2.
This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioners afresh and to pass appropriate orders on the application in
WPC.No.8134/13 -3-
accordance with law. Appropriate orders as indicated above shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- (K.SURENDRA MOHAN) JUDGE .
dsn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the 1st Respondent's rejection of the construction application under a Town Planning Scheme that has not been implemented is unsustainable.
Whether petitioners can be prevented from using their property for commercial purposes due to an unimplemented residential zone scheme.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raju S.Jethmalani and Others v. State of Maharashtra and OthersApplied¶47
[(2005) 11 SCC 222] · Who else cites this
RENJITH K.V.
SANJITH K.V.
THRISSUR CORPORATION
STATE OF KERALA
K.SURENDRA MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Parties & counsel
