Allowed

Francis v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jun 2015WP(C)/4473/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the rejection of a building permit application. The petitioner argued the land was residential, not an industrial zone as claimed. The court relied on precedent rejecting future acquisition claims and obsolete schemes, allowing the petition and quashing the rejection.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P1 (rejection of building permit) quashed; respondent directed to reconsider application within one month and grant permit if in order.

Francis Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2015/12TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 4473 of 2015 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

FRANCIS, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.PALATHINGAL VAVU, P.O. KUTTANELLUR, THRISSUR-680 014.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR).

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.O. ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶12

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶13

LSGD, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶14

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A. SANJEETHA. R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN, SC, SRI.V.N.HARIDAS.

¶15

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

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 4473 of 2015 (H)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 31/12/2014.

¶21

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL.

¶22

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.3165/2012 DATED 21/02/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 4473 of 2015

¶29

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2015

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Ext.P1, by which the petitioner's application for

¶32

building permit was rejected, is under challenge.

¶33

The petitioner is the owner in possession of an

¶34

extent of 1.67 Ares of land comprised Sy. No.720/1 Chiyaram Village within the local limits of the respondent corporation. He submitted an application for the grant of building permit, which was rejected by the 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P1, stating that the area in question is earmarked as an industrial zone in the development scheme. According to the petitioner, there is no such scheme in vogue and the area is completely covered by residential houses. It is with this background, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶35

Arguments have been heard.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 4473 of 2015

¶38

..2..

¶39

my attention to Ext.P2, would point out that almost all the buildings surrounding the property of the petitioner, where the proposed construction is being effected, are residential buildings, which are numbered by the respondent corporation without hesitation.

¶40

He further invited my attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Padmini v. State of

¶41

Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465], wherein 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

¶42

S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharastra [(2005) 11 SCC 222], wherein it was held that refusing to grant permits relying on obsolete DTP schemes is a clear violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Viewed in that profile, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for.

¶43

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed.

¶44

Ext.P1 is quashed and the respondent corporation is

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 4473 of 2015

¶46

..3..

¶47

directed to reconsider petitioner's application for building permit within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and to grant permit in the light of what has been stated above, if the application is otherwise in order.

¶48

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶49

bka/-

Francis v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Francis v. the State of Kerala

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

Kerala Municipal Secretary'S Association Vs State of Kerala

Falcon Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs the District Executive Officer

M/S New Mary Matha Crusher Vs Kooroppada Grama Panchayat

T.P.Mohammed Vs the Valavannur Grama Panchayat

Memi Granites Pvt.Ltd. Vs Naduvil Grama Panchayat

Jayakumar Menon Vs Mulamkunnathukavu Grama Panchayath