Allowed

Joseph Mathew v. Vaikom Municipality

Kerala HC23 Jun 2016WP(C)/2755/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a notice issued by Vaikom Municipality regarding concreting of shop floors without sanction. The court held Section 383A inapplicable to mere flooring repairs and allowed the petition, setting aside the notice while permitting verification for encroachment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed setting aside Notice Ext.P5; construction permitted subject to verification of no encroachment.

Joseph Mathew Vs Vaikom Municipality — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/2ND ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C). No.2755 of 2016 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JOSEPH MATHEW, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH, THITTAPPALLY, KOCHU KAVALA, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686141.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

¶9

SRI.K.R.RANJITH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY, VAIKOM, VAIKOM VILLAGE, PIN-686141, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶13

SRI.M.S.KALESH

¶14

SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 2755 of 2016 (T)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 22/06/2004.

¶20

EXT.P2: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 13/04/2014.

¶21

EXT.P3: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY FO THE BUILDIONG TAX RECEIPT DATED 08/06/2014.

¶22

EXT.P4: A PHOTOCOPY SHOWING THE CHUTTU VERANDAH.

¶23

EXT.P4(A): A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE NATURE OF THE CHUTTU VERANDAH.

¶24

EXT.P5: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 06/01/2016.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL

KRJ

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J

¶30

W.P(C) No. 2755 of 2016

¶31

Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The petitioner purchased two shop rooms with four shutters in the ground floor of a two storeyed building along with the land on which the shop rooms are constructed, by Ext.P1 deed. Noticing the broken flooring in the shop rooms, the petitioner wanted to tile the same and hence, he filed Ext.P6 application which was received by the respondent Municipality as is indicated in Ext.P7. Without obtaining sanction the petitioner had proceeded to concrete the floor, is the contention taken by the respondent Municipality in Ext.P5 notice issued. The counter affidavit also supports the notice on the ground that the petitioner has not taken sanction as per Section 383A of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994. It is also contended that concreting work was done in a room abutting the public road and, therefore, Ext.P5 notice was issued.

¶34

Section 383A only speaks of construction of a building or structure abutting a National Highway, State Highway, District Road or any other roads notified by the Municipality and it also prescribes

¶35

WP(C).2755/16

¶36

-:2:-

¶37

a distance of three metres from the road boundary. The proviso also provides for existing building to be continued even without the set backs so provided. In the present case, it has to be noticed that the petitioner was only concreting the floor of the rooms which he had purchased as per Ext.P1.

¶38

This Court is not convinced that Section 383A would be applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner would be entitled to repair the floor of his shop rooms provided that the work does not encroach on any portion of the land, belonging to the Municipality. The Municipality need only verify whether such encroachment is made or not. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Municipality that there is a proposal for widening of the road. If such a proposal is there and it has to be proceeded with, necessarily acquisition proceedings would have to be taken against the petitioner. However, that cannot restrict the petitioner from enjoying his property and making some modifications as he requires, for proper enjoyment of the property, till such time proceedings are taken. In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed setting aside Ext.P5. The construction shall be carried out in accordance with the directions herein above. The Municipality

¶39

-:3:-

¶40

WP(C).2755/16

¶41

would also be entitled to verify the flooring done in accordance with law to ensure that it does not encroach upon public land.

¶42

Writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶43

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge

¶44

krj. 23/6/16

Joseph Mathew v. Vaikom Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Mathew v. Vaikom Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.M. Babu Vs M.G. Rajamanickam

S.Sunil Kumar Vs the Kerala State Election Commission

Vimal Alias Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Tulsi Developers India Private Limited Vs Karumaloor Grama Panchayath

Shaju Vs Alagappa Nagar Grama Panchayath

K.G.Yahiya Ravuthar Vs State of Kerala