Disposed

P.K.Moideen Koya v. Kozhikode Corporation

Kerala HC7 Nov 2018WP(C)/8790/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus to demolish an alleged illegal construction by the 3rd respondent and prevent regularization. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the complaint and regularization application within one month after affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the complaint and regularization application within one month.

P.K.Moideen Koya Vs Kozhikode Corporation — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 8790 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 P.K.MOIDEEN KOYA S/O.K.UMMER, AGED 77 YEARS, 'ZABEEL',KEERTHI NAGAR, NEAR KANAKALAYA BANK,WEST HILL, CALICUT-673005. ADDL.PETITIONERS 2 TO 5

¶8

Addl. P2 SUHARA MANOLI W/O P.K.MODIDEEN KOYA, ZABEEL, KEERTHI NAGAR, NEAR KANAKALAYA BANK, WEST HILL, CALICUT-673005.

¶9

P3 UMMER FAROOK S/O P.K.MODIDEEN KOYA, ZABEEL, KEERTHI NAGAR, NEAR KANAKALAYA BANK, WEST HILL, CALICUT-673005.

¶10

P4 MUHAMMED SAHIR MANOLI S/O P.K.MODIDEEN KOYA, ZABEEL, KEERTHI NAGAR, NEAR KANAKALAYA BANK, WEST HILL, CALICUT-673005.

¶11

P5 ASEENA P.K D/O P.K.MODIDEEN KOYA, ZABEEL, KEERTHI NAGAR, NEAR KANAKALAYA BANK, WEST HILL, CALICUT-673005.

¶12

ADDL.PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 ADDED AS PER ORDER DATED 5.7.2018 IN I.A.NO.11858/2018

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.P.J.MATHEW SRI.EBIN MATHEW

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

1 KOZHIKODE CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-673032.

¶16

2 THE SECRETARY KOZHIKODE CORPORATION CORPORATION OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-673032.

¶17

WP(C).No. 8790 of 2018

¶18

¶19

3 PADANNAYIL KUDUKKIL MUSTAFFA B4, ROSE RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION, D.K.ROAD, THIRUVANNOOR P.O.,KOZHIKODE-673029.

¶20

BY ADVS. SRI.K.A.MOHAMED HARIS SMT.REKHA ARAVIND SRI.SANTHARAM.P

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No. 8790 of 2018

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Petitioner and his brothers are owners of an extent of 29.20 cents of property, comprised in Re.Survey Nos.18-5-183 of Kasaba Village within the limits of the 1^st respondent Corporation along with a building bearing room Nos.18/405 to 419. During the pendency of this writ petition, the sole petitioner died, consequent to which legal heirs are impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that, a construction is carried out by the 3^rd respondent without securing necessary permit from the 2^nd respondent, i.e. the Secretary of the 1^st respondent Corporation. Having confronted with such a situation, Exts.P5 complaint was filed and no action was taken. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶26

“I) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to take expeditious and effective steps against the 3^rd respondent for constructing the building in violation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 demolishing old rooms with Nos.18/423, 18/420, 18/421 and 18/422 in Kozhikode corporation.

¶27

ii) to direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to regularize and allot numbers to the rooms constructed by the 3^rd respondent and to demolish the illegal construction.

¶28

Iii) To pass any other order this Hon'ble Court deems fit and

¶29

WP(C).No. 8790 of 2018

¶30

¶31

proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶32

The 3^rd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit

¶33

refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. However, it is pointed out that taking into account the lapses on the part of the 3^rd respondent, a regularisation application is submitted on 17.5.2018, seeking to regularise the construction carried out by the 3^rd respondent without securing permit.

¶34

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the regularisation application is received and it is under the consideration of the 2^nd respondent.

¶35

Having heard respective Counsel across the Bar, and perusing the pleadings and documents on record, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 complaint along with the regularisation application submitted by the 3^rd respondent, at the earliest and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the 3^rd respondent.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶37

Sd/ SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶38

jm/

¶39

WP(C).No. 8790 of 2018

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.819/1975 OF CHALAPPURAM SUB-REGISTRATION OFFICE.
EXHIBIT P2	A PHOTO SHOWING THE FRONT VIEW OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION.
EXHIBIT P3	ANOTHER PHOTO SHARING THE NEW CONSTRUCTION FACING THE SUB-JAIL ROAD.
EXHIBIT P4	PHOTO SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S BUILDING AND THE BUILDING BEING CONSTRUCTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5.3.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR RECEIVING THE COMPLAINT BY THE OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION AND NUMBERED 21556.

¶44

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

¶45

EXT.R3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF APPLICATION BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

P.K.Moideen Koya v. Kozhikode Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Moideen Koya v. Kozhikode Corporation

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

Anoop D Vs C M Gopinathan

M/S. Sangrose Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Madhavan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Renchu Oommen Vs Pathanamthitta Municipality

Varghese Samual Vs the Pathanamthitta Municipality

K.Balakrishna Menon Vs the Corporation of Kochi