Quashed

Kunhimuhammed Haji P v. the Malappuram Municipality

Kerala HC6 Feb 2015WP(C)/2632/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam quashed the order denying building permission applying the ratio from Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner. The second respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's application afresh by referring it to the District Town Planner within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directs the Malappuram Municipality to consider the petitioner's building permission application afresh via the District Town Planner within six weeks.

Kunhimuhammed Haji P Vs the Malappuram Municipality — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/17TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 2632 of 2015 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

KUNHIMUHAMMED HAJI P., S/O.KAMMED, PALAYAKKODAN HOUSE, MELMURI P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.RAKESH K.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 505.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 505.

¶12

R1 & R2 BY SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL SRI.E.S.M. KABEER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

...2/-

¶16

WP(C).No. 2632 of 2015 (D)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.1.2015 AS NO. BA-177/14-15.

¶20

EXT.P-1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P1.

¶21

EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶27

W.P.(c) No. 2632 of 2015

¶28

Dated this the 06^th day of February, 2015

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

In the light of the ratio laid down in Praveen v. Land

¶31

Revenue Commissioner [2010 (2) KLT 617], the present writ petition is also disposed of on the same lines, applying the ratio laid down by the learned Division Bench in the said decision, thereby quashing Exhibit P1.

¶32

Consequently, the second respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for building permission afresh, if necessary, by referring the matter to the District Town Planner, and thereafter pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶34

DMR/-

Kunhimuhammed Haji P v. the Malappuram Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunhimuhammed Haji P v. the Malappuram 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

V.Raveendran Vs Varghese K.Daniel

Sabu, S/O.Sankaran Vs the Excise Commissioner

Rajeevgandhi Sudhajala Vs the Vathikudy Grama Panchayath

Joy, S/O.Pathrose Vs State of Kerala

Srajudheen Vs Perinthalmanna Municipality

P.P.Pradeep Kumar Vs Excise Commissioner