Disposed

M.N.Venugopal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Oct 2019WP(C)/2595/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders rejecting a building permit application and assessing a structure as unauthorised construction. The court directed the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the local authority for reconsideration in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to make an appropriate application before the local authority for regular building permit consideration.

M.N.Venugopal Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 23RD ASWINA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.2595 OF 2016(Y)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 M.N.VENUGOPAL AGED 66 YEARS

¶8

S/O.NRAYANA PILLAI, CHAITRAM, VENGOLA KARA, ARACKAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶9

2 POULOSE

¶10

AGED 63 YEARS

¶11

S/O.ANTONY, KACHAPPILLY HOUSE, ANGAMALY KARA, ANGAMALY VILLAGE.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶16

2 PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542.

¶17

3 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PERUMBAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY MUNICIPAL CHAIRPERSON, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542.

¶18

4 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542.

¶19

R1-2 BY SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C).No.2595/16

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15^th day of October, 2019

¶25

This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibits P4, P6, P7 & P8 orders, as also seeking direction to the respondents to reconsider the application for building permit submitted by the 1^st petitioner. A further prayer is also sought for quashing Exhibits P9 and P10 by which the building put up the petitioners has been assessed to property tax as an unauthorised construction.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Exhibit P2 building permit was issued for construction of a temporary shed. It is submitted that thereafter, the application submitted for regular building permit was rejected by Exhibit P4 on the ground that the area in question is a residential zone and

¶28

W.P.(C).No.2595/16

¶29

¶30

construction is possible only to an extent of 50m² . The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Exhibits P6 and P7 proceedings were issued requiring demolition of the temporary structure and Exhibit P10 demand notice was issued assessing the building to property tax as an unauthorised construction. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the property in question falls in the the mixed zone according to the Scheme under the Town Planning Act and that as such, construction is permissible thereon. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application for regular building permit preferred by the petitioners is liable to be considered, taking note of the above facts.

¶31

Respondents 2,3 and 4 have placed a counter affidavit on record stating that Exhibit P2 building permit was for construction of a temporary shed and that the permit was granted subject to Rule 87 of the Kerala Municipality Bulding Rules, 1999. It is stated that after the 6 months validity period of Exhibit P2, the shed constructed is to be demolished and

¶32

W.P.(C).No.2595/16

¶33

¶34

removed. It is stated that the construction in question is an unauthorised construction and that appropriate steps had been taken to assess the construction as such and Exhibits P9 and P10 have been issued to the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners, if so advised, will have to submit a fresh application for building permit, which will be considered in accordance with law.

¶35

Having heard the contentions on either side, I am of the opinion that it is for the petitioners to make an appropriate application before the local authority. In case an application

¶36

for regular building permit is preferred by the petitioners before the Municipality, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders shall be passed by the Municipality without delay.

¶37

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶38

Sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1	EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 2111 DATED 29/04/2003 OF PERUMBAVOOR SRO.
EXHIBIT P2	EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO. PW2-10567/14 DATED 12/11/2014.
EXHIBIT P3	EXT.P3: PHOTOGRAPHS 3 IN NUMBERS.
EXHIBIT P4	EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. BA248/15-16 DATED 06/01/2016 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5	EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 22186/15 DATED 27/07/15 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P6	EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.PW2-10567/14 DATED 04/01/2016 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER ON 04/01/2016.
EXHIBIT P7	EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. PW4- 103/15(R)-2 DATED 07/01/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8	EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. PW4-103/15 R1-2 DATED 07/01/2016 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9	EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. R1(PW2) 10567/14 DATED 14/01/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P10	EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE NO. 1/16 DATED 14/01/2016 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER.

¶43

True copy

¶44

PS to Judge

M.N.Venugopal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.N.Venugopal 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

Joshy Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Viji Williams Vs Aneesh P.B.

Marutham Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

K.v.Paul Vs State of Kerala

Society of the Sisters of Holy Cross, Vs the District Collector and Others

Rajalekshmi M. Vs State of Kerala