Dismissed

Sairabhanu v. Palakkad Municipality, Represented by Its Secretary

Kerala HC2 Mar 2015WP(C)/4341/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of commercial building application. Court disposed of petition by directing 1st respondent to reconsider application expeditiously under specific building rules and planning scheme principles.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to reconsider petitioner's rejected application keeping in view judicial ratio and Rule 62(2) proviso of Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1999.

Sairabhanu Vs Palakkad Municipality, Represented… — 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

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2015/11TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 4341 of 2015 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SAIRABHANU, WIFE OF MINHAJ, AGED 46 YEARS, RC ROAD, WEST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD - 678 014.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶12

3. THE STATE OF KERALA,

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶14

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON

¶15

SRI.P.S.APPU R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SANJEETHA.K.A.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

mbr/

¶18

WP(C).No. 4341 of 2015 (P)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE RELATING TO THE PROPERTY DATED JANUARY 9, 2015. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED JANUARY 24, 2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2(A): A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2011 (3) KHC 162 (DB).

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: - NIL

/TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶27

= = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.4341 of 2015

¶28

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2015

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

¶31

Briefly stated, the petitioner's application for constructing a commercial building was rejected by the 1^st respondent through Ext.P2, citing the reason that the petitioner's plot, in the Detailed Town Planning Scheme, is kept apart to be acquired for industrial purposes. Another objection raised by the 1^st respondent for rejecting the building permit is that the petitioner's proposed construction would offend Rule 62 (2) of Chapter VIII of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. Assailing Ext.P2, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶32

W.P.(C) No.4341 of 2015

¶33

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Apex Court in Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra (2005 (11) SCC 222) has held that unless the property is subjected to acquisition, the owner thereof cannot be prevented from enjoying his property on a mere premise that the authorities have proposed to acquire the property in future.

¶35

The learned counsel has also brought to my notice Ext.P3 judgment rendered by a learned Division Bench of this Court as reported in Gopalakrishnan T.V. v. State of Kerala and others (2011(3) KHC 162) to contend that unless the Master Plan is notified and implemented, no zoning regulation can be imposed.

¶36

The learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent has submitted that the authorities are willing to re-consider the petitioner's application keeping in view the judicial dicta laid down in Raju S. Jethmalani (supra) and in Ext.P3 judgment of this Court.

¶37

In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing

¶38

W.P.(C) No.4341 of 2015

¶39

¶40

Counsel for the respondents, without adverting to the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the 1^st respondent to re-consider the petitioner's application, which was earlier rejected through Ext.P2, keeping in view the ratio laid down in the judgment referred above and also the 2^nd proviso of Rule 62(2) of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1999, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE

¶42

Sairabhanu v. Palakkad Municipality, Represented by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sairabhanu v. Palakkad Municipality, Represented by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.J. Sebastian Vs Antony Chacko

Rehna Mohammed Ashraf Vs Maradu Municipality

Horizon Parks Apartments Owners Association Vs State of Kerala

C.R.Sasidharan Vs the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Alappuzha

Haneefa Vs Andoorkonam Grama Panchayat

Usha Jacob Vs the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram