Allowed

Jaison Mathew v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2017WP(C)/9536/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a municipal communication denying a building permit due to a draft Town Planning Scheme. The Court held that an unnotified draft scheme cannot deny a permit. The communication was quashed, directing authorities to grant the permit.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 communication was quashed. Respondents directed to consider the building permit application within six weeks.

Jaison Mathew Vs the State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | 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. 9536 of 2017 (N) ---------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. JAISON MATHEW AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, VATTAPPILLIL HOUSE, MUTHALAKODAM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 605. 2. JOSE VARGHESE, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, CHAKKALAKUNNEL HOUSE, KALLOORKADU P.O., KALLOORKADU, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN - 686 668. 3. RIJU JOSE, W/O.JOSE VARGHESE, CHAKKALAKUNNEL HOUSE, KALLOORKADU P.O., KALLORKADU, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN -686 668. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2. THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685 584. 3. THE SECRETARY, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN -685 584. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, DISTRICT, PIN - 685584. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.KANNAN SIVARAMAN R2 TO R4 BY ADV.SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT,SC

¶10

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

¶11

K.V.

¶12

WP(C).No. 9536 of 2017 (N)

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶15

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 08.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPTS DATED 15.07.2016, 15.07.2016 AND 06.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THODUPUZHA SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF LAND TAX BY HE PETITIONERS FOR THE PERIOD 2016-17. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATES DATED 9.7.15 AND 12.01.2017 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.BA/46/16-17 DATED 26.09.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT - SECRETARY, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2014 IN W.P.(C) NO.15972/2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL -----------------------

¶16

/TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE

¶17

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶18

................................................................... W.P.(C).No.9536 Of 2017 (N)

¶19

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

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P4 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

¶22

¶23

W.P.(C).No.9536 Of 2017 (N)

¶24

for denying a building permit to the petitioners. Accordingly, I dispose the writ petition by quashing Ext.P4 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.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶27

mns/06.12.17

Jaison Mathew v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaison Mathew 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

Statutes considered

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

Jisha George Vs the State of Kerala

Biju Vs the Vathikudy Grama Panchayat