Disposed

M.Jayachandran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Nov 2018WP(C)/2500/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of building permit due to green-strip area status. Court directed Corporation Secretary to forward application to Regional Town Planner for reconsideration under Section 50 of Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016, within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Corporation Secretary to forward application to Regional Town Planner for reconsideration and final decision within 3 weeks and 2 months respectively.

M.Jayachandran Vs State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 2500 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.JAYACHANDRAN AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. LATE G. MADHUSOODANAN NAIR, T.C 17/890, JAYANILAYAM, CHENGALLOOR, POOJAPPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SHYAM PADMAN SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR SMT.M.KABANI DINESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2 THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3 THE SECRETARY CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE,PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

4 THE REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

BY ADVS. R1 & R4 – SMT. RAJI.T.BHASKAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 & R3 - SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SC TVPM CORPORATION

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 2500 of 2018

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶20

a. To call for the records leading to Ext.P2 order rejecting the application for approval of building permit passed by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same by issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction.

¶21

b. To direct the 2^nd respondent to review Ext. P2 order in the light of Ext.P4 judgment within a time limit stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶22

c. To declare that the petitioner is entitled to

¶23

the approval of building plan as per Ext.P4 judgment.

¶24

d. To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶25

2. The short facts for the disposal of the writ

¶26

petition is that petitioner, owner of an extent of 17.58 ares of property comprised in Re.Sy. No 46/1 of

¶27

WP(C).No. 2500 of 2018

¶28

¶29

Thirumala Village within the limits of the second respondent Corporation has submitted an application seeking building permit, which was declined as per Ext.P2, assigning the reason that the property comes

¶30

up within the green-strip area, as per the sanctioned master plan.

¶31

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the situation would suffice if a direction is issued to the Secretary of the Corporation to reconsider the building permit application and forward the same to the Regional Town Planner, that

¶32

is the 4^th respondent. The second respondent has filed a statement justifying the stand adopted in Ext. P2 and also submitting that in view of the property situated in the green-strip no permit can be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in accordance with Section 50 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016, the area now provided under the master plan in view of its termination after a period of 10 years can be considered by the Regional Town Planner.

¶33

WP(C).No. 2500 of 2018

¶34

¶35

4. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the Secretary of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to reconsider the matter and forward the application submitted by the petitioner to the Regional Town Planner in accordance with law and attain finality at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If and when the application is received from the 4^th respondent, it shall be considered and appropriate decision shall be taken by the 4^th respondent at the earliest and at any rate within 2 months thereafter.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Mn/15.11.2018

WP(C).No. 2500 of 2018

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF 17.58 ARES OF LAND OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. T.P E3/131130/17 DTD. 14.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AREA. EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING BUILDINGS ADJACENT TO THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 24437/2015.

¶46

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

M.Jayachandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Jayachandran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Treasa Jose Vs the District Collector

C.Anil Kumar Vs the Secretary, Kunnamangalam Grama Panchayath

Karthikeyan Vs the Secretary

Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Soukar Masjid Committee

Jojo George Vs the Vazhappally Grama Panchayath

The Best One Properties and Developers Private Limited Vs State of Kerala