Petitioner challenged municipal rejection of building permit citing proposed future acquisition. Court held future acquisition cannot interdict present ownership rights and directed set-aside of rejection order.
Ext.P3 set aside; respondent directed to consider application afresh within one month without reference to proposed acquisition.
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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/15TH PHALGUNA, 1936
WP(C).No. 2218 of 2015 (B)
PETITIONER:
T.V. MOIDEEN, S/O. ABOOBACKER, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT A.T.HOUSE, P.O.MOONNIYUR, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM-676 314.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU
RESPONDENTS:
CHITTUR - THATHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHITTER.P.O., PALAKKAD-678 101.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 2218 of 2015 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
P1- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, THATHAMANGALAM DATED 2.5.2014.
P1(a)- TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1.
P2- TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, THATHAMANGALAM DATED 26.9.2014.
P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 22.12.2014.
P3(a)- TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3.
P4- TRUE COPY OF FEW PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICTING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY DATED -NIL-
P5- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P[C]NO.1939/14 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 21.3.2014.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
/True Copy/
P.A to Judge.
rv
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
---------------------------------W.P. (C) No. 2218 of 2015 (B)
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2015.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite
service of notice, none appears for the respondent Municipality.
W.P.(C). No.2218/2015 -2-
Supreme Court as well as this Court has decided the issue conclusively that in anticipation of any future acquisition, no present right of the property owner can be interdicted. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Raju S. Jetmalani v. State of Maharashtra and others1 and also a decision of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala2 . The learned counsel has also brought to my notice Ext.P5 judgment involving an identical issue.
1 (2005) 11 SCC 222
2 1999(3) KLT 465
W.P.(C). No.2218/2015
-3-
afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon, without reference to the proposed acquisition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv
W.P.(C). No.2218/2015 -4-
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raju S. Jetmalani v. State of Maharashtra and othersRelied on¶3
Raju S. Jetmalani v. State of Maharashtra and others
Padmini v. State of KeralaRelied on¶3
Padmini v. State of Kerala
T.V. Moideen
Chittur - Thathamangalam Municipality
Dama Seshadri Naidu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
