Allowed

Shahina v. the Malappuram Municipality

Kerala HC15 Nov 2017WP(C)/23948/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a petitioner who obtained permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, to use paddy land for non-agricultural purposes is entitled to construct a building. The impugned order rejecting the building permit application was quashed, and the Municipal Council was directed to reconsider the application afresh.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P8 quashed. First respondent directed to consider petitioner's application for grant of building permit afresh within one month. Petitioner to be granted permit if application is otherwise in orde

Shahina Vs the Malappuram Municipality — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/24TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 23948 of 2016 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

SHAHINA, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, KALANTHAN HOUSE, DOWN HILL P.O., MAILAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD

¶9

SRI.R.ANOOP SRI.M.K.PRASANTH KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY-676 505.

¶13

3. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY SRI.E.S.M.KABEER,SC, R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C).No. 23948 of 2016 (P)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED ALONE WITH FORM 1B

¶21

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DT. 8-1-16. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 12-3-1996 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PERINTHALMANNA. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF BUILDING TAX DT. 1-6-15 PAID BY THE IMMEDIATE PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST OF PETITIONER.

¶22

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE TENANT WHICH MENTIONS THE BUILDING NUMBER.

¶23

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF LAND AND SURROUNDING LAND. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 10-6-16 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶30

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶31

W.P.(C).No.23948 of 2016-P.

¶32

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶33

Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2017

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

An order rejecting an application preferred by the petitioner for grant of building permit is under challenge in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, though the property wherein she proposes to put up the building is a paddy land in terms of the revenue records, she obtained permission from the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 to make use of the property for other purposes. Ext.P3 is the order obtained by the petitioner in this regard. The case of the petitioner is that there cannot be any impediment at all in constructing a building in the property covered by Ext.P3 order. She, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in this writ petition.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶37

the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Municipality as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶38

WP.(C).No.23948/2016-P.

¶39

¶40

In so far as the petitioner has already obtained permission from the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order to use the property for other purposes, the petitioner is entitled to make use of the property for construction.

¶41

In the said view of the matter, Ext.P8 is quashed and the first respondent is directed to consider the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of building permit afresh, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that if the request of the petitioner for construction of the building is within the property covered by Ext.P3, the building permit sought by the petitioner shall be granted, if the application is otherwise in order.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶44

Kvs/-

¶45

// true copy //

Shahina v. the Malappuram Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahina v. the Malappuram Municipality

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

M/S Time Ads and Publicity, Represented by Its Managing Partner P.a.Sebastian Vs Thrissur Municipal Corporation, Represented by Its Secretary

K.Narayanan Vs P.Venugopalan

Sathyadevan.K Vs a Shainamol.I.a.S

P.K.Nafeesa Vs Payyoli Grama Panchayath

Vamadean Bhanu Vs Tahasildar

Kalpana Davis Vs State of Kerala