Remanded

Dr.K.R.Jayapal v. Trivandrum Corporation

Kerala HC2 Dec 2016WP(C)/4285/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram to inspect premises within three weeks regarding alleged unauthorized construction. Court ordered inspectorate to verify compliance with 2006 building rules and permit before issuing written orders to continue or modify work.

What did the court decide?

Corporation to inspect premises within three weeks and issue written orders permitting further construction or modifications based on findings.

Dr.K.R.Jayapal Vs Trivandrum Corporation — Labour and Industrial Disputes | 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 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4285 of 2006 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DR.K.R.JAYAPAL, T.C.1/1823, TAGORE GARDENS, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, C.KAMALASANAN, SRUTHI, TC.7/12, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.SURESH

¶9

SRI.G.SUDHEER

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SHANGHUMUGHOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

6. B.VALSALAKUMARI, TC 1/1827(3), OPPO.TO HOUSE NO. TRA - 135, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

7. CHANDRA BABU, DO. DO. DO. DO. R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SC R3 TO R5 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.RENIL ANTO R6 & R7 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

mbr/

¶20

WP(C).No. 4285 of 2006 (I)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT. P1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT	FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.11.2005.
EXT. P2 :	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT	FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29.12.2005.
EXT. P3 :	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER N DATED 3.1.2006 ISSUED BY	O.T.P.I/25777/05 THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT. P4 :	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT	FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 6.2.2006.
EXT. P5 :	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICAT PETITIONER TO THE RESPOND (IA.6516/2006)	ION DATED 23.3.06 OF THE ENT CORPORATION.
EXT. P5 :	TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED BUILDING ISSUED TO 6TH RE OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.	PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SPONDENT FROM THE CORPORATION

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXT. R6A:	TRUE COPY OF THE	SALE DEED NO.3721/2003.
EXT. R6B:	TRUE COPY OF THE	SALE DEED NO.3229/2003.
EXT. R6C:	TRUE COPY OF THE SY.NO.356/1-28.	TAX RECEIPT DATED 6.7.2005 IN
EXT. R6D:	TRUE COPY OF THE SY.NO.356/1-29, 3	TAX RECEIPT DATED 6.7.2005 IN 56/1-30.
EXT. R6E:	TRUE COPY OF THE	PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXT. R6F:	TRUE COPY OF THE	APPROVED PLAN.
EXT. R6G:	TRUE COPY OF THE	NOTICE DATED 12.1.2004.
EXT. R6H:	TRUE COPY OF THE	NOTICE DATED 18.3.2004.
EXT. R6I:	TRUE COPY OF THE THE EXISTING SLAB	PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE TANK IS ON AND THE COMPOUND.
EXT. R6J:	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING.	PHOTOGRAPH OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT
EXT. R6K:	TRUE COPY OF THE	STOP MEMO DATED 25.5.2005. --2--

¶26

--2--

¶27

WP(C).No. 4285 of 2006 (I)

¶28

EXT. R6L:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.5.2005 TO EXT.R6(K).
EXT. R6M:	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE REPLY.
EXT. R6N:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.6.2005 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT. R6O:	TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 6.7.2005.
EXT. R6P:	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT. R6Q:	TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 29.11.2005.
EXT. R6R:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.11.2005 IN EXT.R6(Q).
EXT. R6S:	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT INDICATING ACCEPTANCE OF EXT. R6(R).
EXT. R6T:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3.1.2006 ISSUED BY THE POLICE AUTHORITIES OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXT. R6U:	TRUE COPIES OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT PAID BY THE RESPONDENT 6.
EXT. R6V:	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION.
EXT. R6W:	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE IN GO MAINTAINED AT THE MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶33

-----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 4285 of 2006 (I)

¶34

Dated: 2^nd December, 2016

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The petitioner was aggrieved with the construction carried on by the 6^th and 7^th respondents, which was alleged to be unauthorised. There was a stay granted of the further construction at the time of admission of the writ petition. On allegation of construction being continued, none other than the Assistant Commissioner of Police had inspected the property and filed a report, which is produced along with the memo dated 14.06.2006. The Assistant Commissioner then had instructed respondents 6 and 7 not to continue any construction.

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 4285/2006

¶38

-2-

¶39

The learned Counsel appearing for

¶40

respondents 6 and 7 submits that the entire civil work of the first floor was over at that point of time; which was also constructed in accordance with a permit issued by the Corporation. It is also submitted that what remained was only the tiling of the floors and the fixation of doors and windows, which even now has not been completed.

¶41

It is quite disconcerting that the writ petition has remained in this Court for ten years when the Corporation could have considered the issue with an inspection of the property. The allegation raised by the petitioners is with respect to a staircase constructed near the compound wall of the petitioners and also the water tank said to have been fixed on the sunshade

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 4285/2006

¶43

-3-

¶44

which rests on the compound wall of the petitioners. The 6^th respondent has a contention that the compound wall on that side belongs to the 6^th respondent. It is also submitted that the staircase now complained of was in existence even when the petitioner purchased the property with a single storied building. The submission of the 6^th and 7^th respondents is that after purchase of the building which had a ground floor and had a tiled open roof on the first floor was intended to be converted into a two storied building for which permit was applied for and granted by Ext.R6(e). The construction is also said to have been carried on in accordance with the permit granted.

¶45

In such circumstance, it is only proper that the Corporation conduct inspection and decide on whether the 6^th respondent could be allowed to continue the construction. While the Secretary or an authorised

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 4285/2006

¶47

-4-

¶48

officer inspects the premises, it shall be ensured that the building construction already carried out would have to be looked at with reference to the provisions as it existed in the year 2006, at the time of issuance of Ext.R6(e). The specific contention raised by respondents 6 and 7 that the staircase was already existing in the single storied building also would be looked into. The Corporation shall inspect the premises within three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and with notice to the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 and issue orders in writing permitting respondents 6 and 7 to continue the work, without or with modifications, as decided by the Secretary of the Corporation, on finding the construction to be in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the Building Rules. The inspection shall be conducted by the Secretary or any other officer

¶49

W.P.(C) No. 4285/2006

¶50

-5-

¶51

authorised by the Secretary.

¶52

The writ petition would stand closed without any observation on merits; but with the above directions.

¶53

No Costs.

¶54

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶55

jjj 2/12/16

Dr.K.R.Jayapal v. Trivandrum Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.K.R.Jayapal v. Trivandrum Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Robby Puthuran Vs District Collector

George Moothedan Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Anilkumar Vs Kollam Municipal Corporation

Apsara A.P Vs the State of Kerala

Elsy Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Kiran Raj Vs Corporation of Kozhikode