Allowed

Prabhakaran v. Thalassery Municipality

Kerala HC3 Jul 2015WP(C)/15044/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a building permit due to proposed road widening. Relying on precedents, the judge held that refusal based on future acquisition proposals is impermissible and directed the municipality to reconsider the application.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 is quashed and the 2nd respondent Municipality is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for building permit within two months.

Prabhakaran Vs Thalassery Municipality — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2015/12TH ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No.15044 of 2015 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER'S:

¶7

1. V.P.PRABHAKARAN,S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 56 YEARS,PARAPRATH HOUSE, P.O.PONNIAM WEST,KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

2. JINI CHILLINTAVIDA,D/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 38 YEARS,SREE RAGAM, P.O.PERUMTHATTIL,KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RAGHAVAN.T.K,AGED 68,S/O.PYTHAL NAIR, SREE RAGAM,P.O.PERUMTHATTIL,KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

3. HAREESH.E.M,AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN,CHYTHANYA,P.O.MAMBRAM, KANNURDISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HEERA HAREESH KAKKARIKKAN, D/O.KRISHNAN,CHYTHANYA,P.O.MAMBRAM KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.P.NARAYANAN

¶11

RESPONDENT'S:

¶12

1. THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY,THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY.

¶14

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY,THALASSERY.

¶15

4. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, KOTTARATHIL BUILDINGS,PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY SRI.I.V.PRAMOD,S.C. SRI.K.V.SASIDHARAN,S.C. R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No.15044 of 2015 (E)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

P1COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS.

¶23

P2COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.E5/BA/81/14-15 DATED 24.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

P3COPY OF HTE JUDGMENT DATED 23.1.2013 IN WP.1336/2013.

¶25

P4COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN DATED 23.1.2007 W.A.NO.80/2007.

¶26

P5COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP.21974/2013 DATED 9/7/2014.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶32

===================== W.P.(C) No.15044 of 2015 - E

¶33

====================== Dated this the 3^rd day of July, 2015

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the building permit applied for by the petitioner has rejected by the 2^nd respondent for reason that there is a proposal for widening of the road. The issue is no longer res integra by virtue of a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Padmini v.

¶36

State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465] , wherein in it was held that no building permit can be refused to any person because there is a proposal to acquire the land in future. Reliance was also placed to the decision of the Apex Court in Raju S . Jethmalani v. State of Maharastra [(2005) 11 SCC 222] wherein it was held that refusing to grant permits relying on obsolete DTP schemes

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C) No.15044 of 2015 - E

¶39

is a clear violation of the provisions of the Constitution.

¶40

In such circumstance, this Court is of the view that

¶41

the petitioners are entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. The writ petition is allowed. Ext.P2 is quashed and the 2^nd

¶42

respondent Municipality is directed to reconsider petitioner's application for building permit de hors Ext.P2, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶43

The writ petition is allowed.

¶44

Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶45

¶46

// true copy //

¶47

P.A to Judge.

Prabhakaran v. Thalassery Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakaran v. Thalassery 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

Abdul Salam Vs the Secretary, Rta, Malappuram

Regional Transport Authority,Malappuram Vs Anoopa C

M/S Eden Holdings,Vythiri Vs State & 3 Ors.

Shamsuddin Vs District Collector

Sabu Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Nidheesh Vs the Circle Inspector of Police