Allowed

Annamkutty George v. Corporation of Kochi

Kerala HC11 Aug 2015WP(C)/20148/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the petitioners were entitled to relief directing the Municipal Corporation authorities to take appropriate action within one month to remove unauthorized shutter windows constructed by the fourth respondent in violation of building rules.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to take appropriate action to remove the unauthorized constructions in terms of the Ext.R3(a) report and the Municipality Act within one month.

Annamkutty George Vs Corporation of Kochi — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/20TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 20148 of 2013 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

ANNAMKUTTY GEORGE, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O.GEORGE, CHAMMINIKODATH HOUSE, MALIAKKAL, THEVARA P.O., KOCHI - 13.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO

¶9

SMT.C.M.CHARISMA

¶10

SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶12

1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY OFFICE OF KOCHI CORPORATION, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, OFFICE OF KOCHI CORPORATION, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶14

3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, OFFICE OF KOCHI CORPORATION, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 011

¶15

¶16

BINU PAUL.P.P., PADANNAKKAL HOUSE, NETTUR P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 040.

¶17

R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.ALOSIOUS GILBERT R1-R3 BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

AMV

¶20

: 2 :

¶21

WP(C).No. 20148 of 2013 (P)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶24

EXT.P1 : COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 16/1/1975. EXT.P2 : COPY OF REPREENTATION DATED 30/5/13 MADE BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH A COPY TO 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 14/6/13 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶26

EXT.R4(a) : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.06.2013 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

AMV

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶31

.................................................

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 20148 of 2013 (P)

¶33

...............................................

¶34

Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2015

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶37

prayers :

¶38

i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to take emergent steps to remove the unauthorized construction made by the 4^th respondent;

¶39

¶40

ii. issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶41

The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in preventing the illegal constructions made by the 4^th respondent in his property adjoining to the petitioner's property. It is alleged that construction of windows are being done in total violation of the plan and the Building Rules. It is also claimed that the minimum distance rule is also violated by the 4^th respondent, in effecting the constructions.

¶42

Pursuant to an order dated 27.09.2013 issued by this Court, the 3^rd respondent had filed an affidavit producing a report prepared pursuant to an inspection conducted on 10.10.2013. It is

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 20148 of 2013 (P)

¶44

¶45

stated in the affidavit as well as in the report that, the 4^th respondent has effected the constructions in violation of the building rules and the minimum distance rules provided therein. It is stated that three shutter windows have been constructed in violation of Rule 62(2) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. Further violation have also been pointed out in Ext.R3(a) report.

¶46

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the report has been filed as early as on 18.10.2013; no further steps have been taken by respondent Nos.1 to 3 to remove the unauthorised constructions or to take action against the 4^th respondent in accordance with law.

¶47

I have heard Sri.C.A.Chacko, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Millu Dandapani, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.M.R.Nandakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent.

¶48

The learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that, the respondents had pursuant to noticing the unauthorised construction, issued provisional order and stop memo to the 4^th respondent. However, it is clear from a perusal of affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent as well as Ext.R3(a) that constructions have already been effected in violation of the rules.

¶49

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take appropriate action, in

¶50

W.P.(C) No. 20148 of 2013 (P)

¶51

¶52

accordance with law, in terms of Ext.R3(a) report filed by the 3^rd respondent with regard to the unauthorised constructions made by the 4^th respondent in his property. Action in this regard shall be initiated in terms of the Municipality Act and Rules, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE

¶54

AMV/11/08/

Annamkutty George v. Corporation of Kochi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annamkutty George v. Corporation of Kochi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Mohankumar Vs K.S.E.B.

V.P.Vasu Vs the Tahasildar

T.N.Sivasankaran Vs the Tirur Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

T.P. Geethadevi Vs the District Executive Officer & Others

Rajesh Babu Vs State of Kerala

P. Ali Vs the Areacode Grama Panchayath