This court mentioned its mind on a writ petition where the petitioner challenged denial of building approval due to coastal regulation zone classification. The petition seeks an order to permit the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation filed.
Permission to forward representation; direction to consider the same after hearing the petitioner.
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 A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/16TH SRAVANA, 1937
WP(C).No. 4869 of 2015 (G)
PETITIONER:
REETHA, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.PRAKASHAN, MARADAKKATH HOUSE, PANNIYANKARA, KOZHIKODE.
BY SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SMT.P.R.REENA.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 020.
2. THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, SASTRA BHAVAN, OPP. TO VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC, SRI.K.D.BABU, SC. R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRAKASH C.VADAKKAN. J., SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 4869 of 2015 (G)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
-------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 4869 of 2015
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the owner in possession of a total extent of 18.54 ares of land in Re.Sy.No.10, Sub Division 5/B1, A2, A1 of Kottooly Village, which, she along with her children, obtained as per registered sale deed dated 30.01.2011. The property is within the local limits of the respondent corporation. The said property is bounded by PWD Road, paddy field, garden land. According to her, there is no coastal area near her property and the property is cultivated with coconut trees, arecanut trees etc. As the petitioner has intended to construct a multi storied special residential building in the aforesaid property, she approached the respondent corporation. There, she was told that her property is included in the coastal regulation notification. According to her, it is totally illegal; and the prohibition of construction of
..2..
W.P.(C) No. 4869 of 2015
development of land is limited to a distance of 100 meters from the coastal regulation zone. She points out that the said land does not come within 100 meter from the high tide level and there is no sea or backwater anywhere near the property. Her grievance is that because of the stand taken by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner's land is also included in the coastal regulation zone, she is not in a position to get building permit from the 1st respondent corporation. Hence, this writ petition.
W.P.(C) No. 4869 of 2015
..3..
In view of the rival submissions, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to forward a copy of Ext.P4 representation along with a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the event of forwarding a copy of Ext.P4, the same shall be considered by the 2nd respondent after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard within a period of one month thereafter.
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE
bka/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the statutory authority shall consider the petitioner's representation regarding coastal regulation zone status.
REETHA
KOZHIKODE CORPORATION
THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
