This Single Judge Bench allowed a writ petition where the Municipality refused a building permit citing a development plan. The Court accepted the petitioners' uncontroverted claim that the plan was no longer in force and set aside the notice refusing the permit.
Exhibit P4 notice quasi; petitioners' building permit application to be considered within two months.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/30TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 236 of 2016 (D)
PETITIONERS : -
BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN
RESPONDENTS : -
R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 236 of 2016 (D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : -
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2943/2008 DATED 11.7.2008 OF PUNALUR SUB REGISTRY.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.BA/43/10-11 DATED 16.8.2010.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.E1-TBA-(14374)/2015 DATED 14.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : - NIL.
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
DMR/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN,J.
W.P (c) No. 236 of 2016
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are aggrieved with Exhibit P4 notice issued in pursuance of a building permit application. The petitioners are said to have purchased a property having 15
cents in Survey No. 469/1B/17 of Punalur Village in Ward No.30 of Punalur Municipality by virtue of Exhibit P1 deed. The petitioners had sought for a building permit in the said
land from the Municipality. The Municipality, by Exhibit P4, informed the petitioners that since there is a development plan and there is possibility of acquisition, the Municipality is unable to consider the said application. The petitioners have specially averred in the writ petition that the development plan is no more in force and that the Municipality has been granting permits, as is evidenced by Exhibit P5. The Municipality, despite having taken notice has not cared to file any counter affidavit. It was also directed by this Court
W.P (c) No. 236 of 2016
2
on 09.06.2016 that if no counter is filed within ten days, the averments in the writ petition would be treated as uncontroverted. In such circumstances, there being no contravention of the averments in the writ petition, the case of the petitioners that the development plan is no more in force has to be accepted. Exhibit P4 is set aside. The petitioners' application for building permit shall be considered, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment.
With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. Parties to suffer their costs.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE
DMR/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioners' averment that the development plan preventing building permits was no longer in force is accepted due to lack of counter-affidavit.
Udayan
Sobha Devi
Punalur Municipality
Secretary, Punalur Municipality
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
