Allowed

Anil Kumar v. the Nedumangadu Municipality

Kerala HC20 Sept 2014WP(C)/15869/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the refusal of a building permit. It held that a land owner cannot be deprived of property use based on a development scheme without initiated acquisition proceedings. The petitioner was directed to have his application considered afresh.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P1 set aside; respondent directed to consider petitioner's building permit application afresh within one month.

Anil Kumar Vs the Nedumangadu Municipality — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/29TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 15869 of 2014 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

ANIL KUMAR

¶8

S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, UJJAYINI, VENGOD P.O. NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶10

SRI.P.BAJI RAVEENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

THE NEDUMANGADU MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETYARY, NEDUMANGAD, PIN 695 541

¶13

THE SECRETARY NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY, NEDUMANGAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 541

¶14

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 15869 of 2014 (G)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT P1-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.04.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶20

EXT P2-TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.5.2014 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUMANGADU.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶26

------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.15869 of 2014

¶27

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2014

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 rejection of his application for building permit. The petitioner is the owner of 01.05 Ares of dry land comprised in Survey No.573/10 of Nedumangad Village in Thiruvananthapuram District. The building permit sought for by the petitioner has been rejected for the reason that his land is required for the purpose of providing a parking area for lorries. As per the Central Area Development Scheme the petitioner's land has been earmarked for the said purpose, it is stated. According to the counsel for the petitioner, no land acquisitional proceedings have been initiated against his property. He relies on Ext.P2 to support that contention. The petitioner therefore prays that Ext.P1 is liable to be set aside.

¶30

I have heard Adv.Sri.P.Ramakrishnan who appears for the respondent Municipality.

¶31

In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Raju S.Jathmalani v. State of Maharashtra (2005 (11) SCC 222) , it

¶32

is settled that a land owner cannot be deprived of his right to use his property on the basis of a development scheme that has not been implemented by the initiation of proceedings for the acquisition of his land. Ext.P2 reveals that no proceedings are initiated yet, for the

¶33

W.P.(C)No.15869 of 2014

¶34

¶35

acquisition of the petitioner's land. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's application for building permit on the ground stated in Ext.P1 cannot be sustained.

¶36

For the above reasons, Ext.P1 is set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's application for building permit afresh and to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, 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.

¶37

Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.

¶38

Anil Kumar v. the Nedumangadu Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. the Nedumangadu 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

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Vykathi Vikas Kendra - India Vs Palakkad Municipality

Vijayan Vs the Pallassana Grama Panchayath

Kovukkal Sajeev Kumar Vs the Secretary, Panoor Grama Panchayat

Annie K.Baby Vs Konni Grama Panchayath

N.Shajahan Vs Munnar Grama Panchayat