Allowed

Jisha George v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2017WP(C)/22676/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala quashed the Municipality's refusal to consider a building permit application, holding that land in a draft scheme area without a notified scheme and initiated acquisition cannot be treated as a no-development area.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 communication quashed; Respondents 2 to 4 directed to consider the building permit application ignoring the draft scheme within six weeks.

Jisha George Vs the State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 22676 of 2017 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. JISHA GEORGE, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O JOBY THOMAS, CHARALIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA, THODUPUZHA TALUK, THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI-685584.

¶8

2. JINS GEORGE, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O PALAKUNNEL GEORGE ,THODUPUZHA KARA, THODUPUZHA TALUK, THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI-685584.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SAIJO HASSAN

¶10

SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN

¶11

SRI.RAFEEK. V.K.

¶12

SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN SMT.P.PARVATHY

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

----------------------------

¶15

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. L.S.G.D. LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695001.

¶16

2. THE THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THODUPUZHA-685 584, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶17

3. THE SECRETARY, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THODUPUZHA-685584, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶18

4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, 685 584, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶19

R1 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.KANNAN SIVARAMAN R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT,SC

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

WP(C).No. 22676 of 2017 (H)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEEDS DATED 31.8.2013 AND 5.10.2016.

¶26

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPTS DATED 3.4.2017.

¶27

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.5.2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE BUILDING PERMIT.

¶28

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

¶29

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.29992 OF 2015.

¶30

EXHIBIT P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, IDUKKI TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.2.2015.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶36

................................................................... W.P.(C).No.22676 Of 2017 (H)

¶37

..................................................................... Dated this the 6^th day of December, 2017

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P3 communication issued by the respondent Municipality stating that an application for building permit cannot be considered on account of the land of the petitioners coming within the 'No development area, earmarked in a Town Planning Scheme pertaining to the area in question. The learned Standing counsel for the respondent Municipality would confirm that there is no notified Town Planning Scheme for the western area of the Municipality and there is only a notified Scheme for the eastern area. The property belonging to the petitioners admittedly falls within the western area, where there is no notified Town Planning Scheme but only a Draft Town Planning Scheme. It is also evident that no acquisition proceedings have been initiated pursuant to the draft Scheme all these years, and hence, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raju S.Jethmalani and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2005) 11 SCC 222] would apply for holding that the existence of the draft Scheme cannot be a reason

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C).No.22676 Of 2017 (H)

¶42

for denying a building permit to the petitioners. Accordingly, I dispose the writ petition by quashing Ext.P3 communication and directing respondents 2 to 4 to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioners dehors the draft Scheme covering the area in question. The respondents 2 to 4 shall consider and pass orders on the application for building permit, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioners.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶45

mns/06.12.17

Jisha George v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jisha George v. the State of Kerala

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

Sajeevan K.K Vs the Secretary

P.Venugopal Vs the Secretary, Kollengode Gramapanchayat

Ushakumari Vs Thodupuzha Municipality

Rajive Paul Vs Tahasildar

Jaison Mathew Vs the State of Kerala

Biju Vs the Vathikudy Grama Panchayat