Allowed

Royal Blue Hotels v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Dec 2017WP(C)/17816/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging orders directing demolition of the petitioner's hotel building. The petitioner submitted an undertaking that the building would not impede future development projects. The court permitted the petitioner to utilize the building and directed the Corporation to issue an occupancy certificate within three weeks, subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to utilize the building; 4th respondent to issue occupancy certificate within three weeks; petitioner waives compensation claims.

Royal Blue Hotels Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 17816 of 2013 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

ROYAL BLUE HOTELS, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SHAFEECCA MOHAMMED RAFI, ROYAL BLUE HOTELS, KRISHNA, T.C.NO.2/1854, GOURISAPATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶8

BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS.SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.T.T.RAKESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶11

2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,

¶13

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶14

4. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.K.A.JALEEL

¶16

SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY R4 BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARAMENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-12-2017, ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 27448/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

WP(C).No. 17816 of 2013 (B)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

P1TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR URBAN AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED 31.10.2012.

¶23

P2TRUE OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 3.1.2013.

¶24

P3TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17.1.2013.

¶25

P4TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 11.2.2013.

¶26

P5TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO EXHIBIT P4 DATED NIL.

¶27

P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 13.6.2013.

¶28

P7TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 26.6.2013.

¶29

P8TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CORPORATION DATED 02/01/2014

¶30

P9TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME PUBLISHED AS GO(MS) NO.150/78/LA&SWD DATED 17/06/1978

¶31

P10TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED SCHEME PUBLISHED AS GO(MS) NO.31/2010/LSGD DATED 19/02/2010

¶32

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶33

R1(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.7971/LAO DATED 18/06/1971

¶34

R1(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.150/78/LA/SWD DATED 17/06/1978

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶39

W.P(C).Nos. 17816 & 27448 of 2013

¶40

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2017

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation.

¶43

The orders under challenge in these writ petitions have been issued to the petitioners directing to demolish the building put up by the petitioner. The petitioner has raised several contentions with regard to the legal validity of the said orders. It is contended that the respondents have proceeded on the basis that the construction violates the Town Planning Scheme which has been notified in terms of the Travancore Town and Country Planning Act, 1120 M.E. It was contended that on promulgation of the Travancore Town Planning Act, 1108 M.E, the Travancore Town and Country Planning Act, 1120 ceased to be in operation. It is therefore contended that the scheme in question which was promulgated under the 1120 Act would have no operation and the rejection of the petitioner's review petition on the ground that the construction offended the said scheme is illegal and unsustainable.

¶44

¶45

WP(C).17816 & 27448/13

¶46

A statement has been filed on behalf of the Corporation in W.P(C).No. 17816 of 2013 contending that a petition had been filed before the Government against the unauthorised construction carried out by the petitioner. It is stated that the Government had ordered an enquiry through the Senior Town Planner (Vigilance) and had come to the conclusion that the proposed building has a height of 9.5 metres and that the construction abuts NH 47 and the Vizhinjam Balaramapuram road. It is stated that there are widening proposals in respect of the Vizhinjam Balaramapuram road. The learned Government Pleader has also filed a detailed counter affidavit contending that there was no implied repealment of the Trvancore Town and Country Planning Act, 1120 and that the said Act was in force. It is also contended that the areas in question were notified as residential zone in the official gazette and that therefore there is no question with regard to the applicability of the scheme in question. After the writ petitions were heard in detail, an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in W.P(C). No.17816 of 2013. It is stated that the petitioner is unable to utilise the building put up due to the pendency of these writ petitions. Paragraph 4 of the said affidavit reads as follows:

¶47

¶48

WP(C).17816 & 27448/13

¶49

“4. Petitioner is ready and willing to make such alterations/modifications/demolitions at its costs, in the event, any project as per the Kovalam-Vizhinjam Area Development Plan is put to implementation over the area where the subject building is situated and that the subject building will not be an impediment for such development project under the said plan. Accepting this unconditional undertaking this Honourable Court may be pleased to allow the petitioner to put to use the hotel building by giving necessary directions to the authorities concerned to number the subject building and to issue occupancy certificate with respect to the same.”

¶50

I have considered the contentions advanced. It is not in dispute that building permit had been granted to the petitioner by the Corporation. It is also not in dispute that a major portion of the construction is complete. No notification for acquisition of land for any road widening project has been issued by the respondents. In the above view of the matter, taking note of the affidavit filed by the petitioner today, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be disposed of permitting the petitioner to utilise the building, subject to the specific conditions as provided in the affidavit filed by the petitioner. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. The petitioner shall be permitted to put the building constructed to use, subject to the

¶51

¶52

WP(C).17816 & 27448/13

¶53

conditions as contained in the affidavit filed by the petitioner today as extracted above. The 4^th respondent shall issue occupancy certificate to the petitioner in terms of what has been stated above within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the petitioner will not claim any compensation from the Corporation, in case any portion of the building has to be

¶54

demolished for the implementation of the scheme.

¶55

The writ petitions are ordered accordingly.

¶56

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶57

vgs

Royal Blue Hotels v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal Blue Hotels v. State of Kerala

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

Resmi G.S Vs State of Kerala

A.v.Vasantha Vs State of Kerala

Rakhi R. Vs the Manager, S.N.Colleges

Nijimol M.V Vs the Kannur University

Devadas Sukumaran Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.Syam S Kurup Vs Kerala Agricultural University