Partly allowed

Dr.K.R Sunilkumar v. Thrissur Corporation

Kerala HC22 Sept 2014WP(C)/16681/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged rejection of a building permit due to late title registration and land designation as paddy. Court set aside the rejection order, directing petitioners to apply to the Local Level Monitoring Committee to correct Data Bank entries based on revenue proceedings, to be disposed of within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Rejection order set aside; Petitioners directed to apply to Local Level Monitoring Committee to correct Data Bank description within one week; Corporation to reconsider application after correction.

Dr.K.R Sunilkumar Vs Thrissur Corporation — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/31ST BHADRA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 16681 of 2014 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. DR.K.R.SUNILKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, NO.9, SWATHY, FIRST STREET, GREEN PARK, THIRUVAMBADY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

2. SUSMITHA K.M., KANJIRASSERY HOUSE, GREEN PARK, THIRUVAMBADY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)

¶10

SMT.R.RAJITHA

¶11

SRI.K.D.SREEVISAKH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE BUILDING, THRISSUR.

¶14

2. THE TOWN PLANNER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, ASOOTHRANA BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680003.

¶15

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR.

¶16

4. THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR.

¶17

5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

R1 BY SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN, SC R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.N.HARIDAS R2-R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

BKA/-

¶21

WP(C).No. 16681 of 2014 (I)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5439/2012 OF AYYANTHOLE SRO DTD.24/12/2012
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1147/2012 OF AYYANTHOLE SRO DTD.19/3/12
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO:2095/85 OF AYYANTHOLE SRO DATED 26/06/1985
EXT.P4	COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER GIVEN BY RDO UNDER KLU ORDER, 1967
EXT.P5	COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER,DATED 20/11/2013
EXT.P6	COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL FILED OFFICER DATED 29/11/2013
EXT.P7	COPY OF THE LETTER OF TOWN PLANNER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 24/05/2014
EXT.P8	COPY OF THE NOTICE OF REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 10/06/2014
EXT.P9	COPY OF THE G.O(MS)30/2012/L.S.G.D DATED 10.02.2012 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXT.P10	COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)123/2008/LSGD THE GENERAL TOWN PLANNING SCHEME.
EXT.P11	COPY OF THE KERALA GAZETTE NOTIFICATION OF FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONERS.

¶25

RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

bka/-

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶30

W.P.(C).No.16681 of 2014

¶31

Dated this the 22^nd day of September, 2014

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P8 order of the first respondent by which an application for building permit submitted by the petitioners has been rejected. Two reasons are stated for the rejection; firstly, that the petitioners' title document has been registered on a date subsequent to 3.5.2008, namely 24.12.2012 and secondly, that the property has been described as a paddy field in the Master Plan as well as Possession Certificate. The petitioners place reliance on Ext.P4 proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur by which, the petitioners were permitted to reclaim the land under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. Pursuant to the said order, according to the petitioners the land was reclaimed and the now it remains as a fully developed dry land.

¶34

The above facts are evident from Ext.P4 proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur, Ext.P5 reports of the Village

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C).No.16681 of 2014

¶37

Officer and Ext.P6 report of the Agricultural Field Officer. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners' application has been rejected without considering Exts.P4, P5 and P6. In view of the above, the petitioners seek the issue of appropriate directions quashing Ext.P8 order of rejection.

¶38

Adv.K.P.Vijayan, appears for the first respondent Corporation. A counter affidavit has been filed.

¶39

The contention of the first respondent is that, the petitioners' land has been described as a paddy land in the Data Bank published under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is contended that, as long as the description of the land in the Data Bank remains unaltered, it is not possible to grant a building permit to the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners offers that the petitioners would prefer necessary application for correcting the description of the land in the Data Bank.

¶40

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of, with the following directions:

¶41

The petitioners shall move a proper application before the

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C).No.16681 of 2014

¶44

Local Level Monitoring Committee for correcting the description of the land in the Data Bank supported by necessary documents Exts.P4 to P6. Such application, if submitted within a period of one week of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, shall be considered and finally disposed of, within a period of three weeks thereof.

¶45

Since Ext.P8 has been passed without considering Exts.P4 to P6 documents, it is unsustainable and is therefore set aside.

¶46

The petitioners shall be at liberty to produce the order of the Local Level Monitoring Committee before the Corporation, whereupon the first respondent shall consider the petitioner's application, in the light of Exts.P4 to P6 as well as the corrected application of the Local Level Monitoring Committee. Appropriate orders shall thereafter be passed on the petitioners' application, expeditiously.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

K.SURENDRA MOHAN,

¶49

JUDGE.

¶50

rkc.

Dr.K.R Sunilkumar v. Thrissur Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.K.R Sunilkumar 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

Kovukkal Sajeev Kumar Vs the Secretary, Panoor Grama Panchayat

Anil Kumar Vs the Nedumangadu Municipality

Annie K.Baby Vs Konni Grama Panchayath

Mirshad Vs the Tirur Municipality

Jayakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Assis K.K Vs the Rayamangalam Grama Panchayath