Disposed

P.Bhaktavalsalan v. the Kozhikode Corporation.

Kerala HC8 Dec 2016WP(C)/6966/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regularisation of building numbering denied by the Corporation due to alleged non-compliance and pending road widening. Court allowed provisional numbering and directed petitioner to cure defects and pursue regularisation within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Provisional numbering to continue; Petitioner to cure defects and submit fresh regularisation application within two weeks; Corporation to await recommendations after inspection.

P.Bhaktavalsalan Vs the Kozhikode Corporation. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6966 of 2008 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. P.BHAKTAVALSALAN

¶8

SUN SHINE VILLA, KUNDUPARAMBA, EDAKKARA P.O.,, CALICUT-5.

¶9

SUPPLEMENTAL PETITIONERS 2 TO 4*

¶10

2. BHAGYAM, W/O LATE SRI. P. BHAKTAVALSALAN, AGED 59 YRS SUNSHINE VILLA, POST EDAKKAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

3. NIKETH, S/O LATE SRI. P. BHAKTAVALSALAN, AGED 30 YRS SUNSHINE VILLA, POST EDAKKAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

4. NEETHI, D/O LATE SRI. P. BHAKTAVALSALAN, AGED 29 YRS SUNSHINE VILLA, POST EDAKKAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶13

( SUPPLEMENTAL PETITIONERS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 08.12.2016 IN I.A NO.12344/14)*

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

¶15

RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

1. THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION. CORPORATION BUILDINGS, KOZHIKODE,

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶18

2. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, CORPORATION BUILDINGS,, KOZHIKODE.

¶19

R,R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION R BY SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,SC,KOZHIKODE CORP

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 6966 of 2008 (D)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E6.23734/05 DTD. 6.4.06 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ON 22.9.06
EXT.P3 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FOR THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE.
EXT.P4 COPY OF THE SITE PLAN FOR SHOP CUM OFFICE BUILDING IN WARD NO.38 OF KOZHIKODE CORPORATION.
EXT.P5 COPY OF THE REPLY FROM THE CO-ORDINATOR, KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P6 COPY OF THE LETTER FROM ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO SRI. GANGADHARAN.
EXT.P7 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PETITIONERS BUILDING AND DISTANCE FROM THE PRESENT ROAD MARGIN TOT HE PETITIONERS BUILDING.

¶25

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶26

EXT.R1(A) COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 25..3.08 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(B) COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30.05.13 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶31

===================== W.P.(C) No.6966 of 2008 - D

¶32

====================== Dated this the 08^th day of December, 2016

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The petitioner was granted a building permit for constructing a building with ground floor and first floor as is seen from Ext.P1. The ground floor was first completed and numbered. On completion of the first floor, an application was made before the Corporation for occupancy certificate and numbering the same. The Corporation refused to consider the application or number the building.

¶35

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶36

the denial of consideration was due to the fact that the road abutting the building was intended to be widened. The petitioner was also communicated that road width was intended to be increased from 9.5 metres to 24 metres. The petitioner

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C) No.6966 of 2008 - D

¶39

applied before the Co-ordinator, PWD, Kozhikode and was issued with Ext.P5, which indicates that the proposal has been modified and the width sought to be enhanced is reduced to 15 metres.

¶40

In any event, the road widening proposal is seen to have been the reason for non-consideration of an occupancy certificate in 2006. Even today, the road widening has not materialized. If at all any road widening is intended, then the Corporation could very well acquire the property and also pay damages for the property and improvements made therein. On a long pending widening proposal, the owners of a property abutting a road cannot be prohibited from fully enjoying their property, which enjoyment, would also include construction of buildings thereon. In such circumstance, this Court does not find any reason to sustain the refusal of the Corporation to number the first floor of the building.

¶41

¶42

W.P.(C) No.6966 of 2008 - D

¶43

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation however would submit that there were certain deviations from the approved plan, which has been specifically noticed in the counter affidavit and proceedings have been initiated under Section 406(1)(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is a regularisation application filed, which was forwarded to the Regional Town Planner as well as the Government, without any recommendation. The Regional Town Planner has also replied by Ext.R1(b), pointing out certain deficiencies.

¶44

In such circumstance, the petitioner shall cure the defects pointed out by the Regional Town Planner and submit a fresh application for recommendation to the Corporation, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Secretary shall, if necessary, after an inspection, make recommendations to the Regional Town

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C) No.6966 of 2008 - D

¶47

Planner and shall await the orders. The petitioner would be entitled to pursue the matter and in the meanwhile, the provisional numbering, permitted by interim order shall be continued. On the petitioner's regularisation application being allowed, the numbering of the building shall be regularised.

¶48

The writ petition would stand disposed of with the above observations. No costs.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,

JUDGE

SB/09/12/2016

// true copy //

P.A to Judge

P.Bhaktavalsalan v. the Kozhikode Corporation.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Bhaktavalsalan v. the Kozhikode Corporation.

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

Jayasree v. Vs K.K. Jalan

Naicymol C.S. Vs Remani

M.v.George Vs State of Kerala

Fausine E. Francis Vs v.Senthil

Shakeer K.M. Vs R.Girija IAS

Edakandan Saithalavi Vs State of Kerala