Disposed

Rana Sthuthi v. Corporation of Kozhikode

Kerala HC18 Nov 2016WP(C)/402/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the rejection of a building permit application due to the absence of a Detailed Town Planning Scheme. The High Court directed the Corporation to consider the application, verify claims of other permitted buildings, and issue a direction within two months after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to consider building permit application, verify claims of other permitted buildings under Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, and provide opportunity of hearing withi

Rana Sthuthi Vs Corporation of Kozhikode — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/27TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 402 of 2016 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

RANA STHUTHI, AGED 47 YEARS, SON OF PUTHILAKATHU CHANDRASEKHARAN (LATE), RESIDING AT GOVIND ROYAL NEST, DOOR NO.5, 2ND FLOOR, NO.12, 2ND STREET, 3RD MAIN ROAD, EAST CIT NAGAR, NANDANAM, CHENNAI-600035.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE-67032.

¶11

2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE-67032.

¶12

*** ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED**

¶13

3. TOWN PLANNER, KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE-673020.

¶14

ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 31/8/16 IN IA.13558/2016.

¶15

R1 & 2 BY SRI.K.D.BABU,SC R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MANURAJ

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 402 of 2016 (A)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NUMBER 855 OF 2003 OF THE KOZHIKODE SUB REGISTRY.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR BUILDING PERMIT. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTICE NUMBER DATED 27.7.2015 BEARING NUMBER 707/20194/15.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

K. Vinod Chandran, J

-------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.402 of 2016-A

¶30

¶31

Dated this the 18^th day of November, 2016

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner is aggrieved with the rejection of his application for building permit despite there being no Detailed Town Planning Scheme (DTP) available for the area. The respondent-Corporation seeks to sustain Ext.P3, contending that the proposed construction extends to a proposed road under the DTP Scheme for the area.

¶34

The petitioner's property is situated in Re-survey No.17-11-329 in Kasaba amsom Karyakunnu desom of Kozhikode Taluk. The petitioner relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2011 (3) KLT 317 ) and Raju

¶35

S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra and others (2005 (11) SCC

¶36

222). The Scheme of 1994 has become redundant and cannot be pressed into service to deny construction of a building in a property owned by an individual.

¶37

WP(C) No.402 of 2016 - 2 -

¶38

The petitioner also has taken a specific averment in

¶39

paragraph 3 of the memorandum that there are other residential buildings permitted in the area without looking at the DTP Scheme. In such circumstance, it is only proper to issue a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the building permit application of the petitioner without looking at the DTP Scheme; but, however, in accordance with Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 and verifying as to whether the claim of existence of permission granted for construction of other residential buildings is correct. The consideration shall be made after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶40

Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶41

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge

¶42

vku/-

¶43

[ true copy ]

Rana Sthuthi v. Corporation of Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rana Sthuthi v. Corporation of Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thrideep Vs Sajikumar

Moideen Vs Ibrahim Kunhu

Subair Vs State of Kerala

P.P.Joseph Vs Mathai

Pandalam Block Panchayath Vs State of Kerala

D.Prasanth Vs Secretary