Disposed

Thamban K. v. Payyannur Muncipality

Kerala HC25 Jan 2019WP(C)/31776/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram Justice V.G. Arun. The Writ Petitioner sought a building permit for a Cottage Industrial Building, which was rejected based on Draft Town Planning Scheme. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh application within one month. The respondent must consider it without reference to the Scheme and decide within one month. The rejection memo is quashed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh building permit application within one month. Respondent must consider it without Plan reference and decide within one month. Ext P4 quashed.

Thamban K. Vs Payyannur Muncipality — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C)No.31776 of 2011 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶5

FRIDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 5TH MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 31776 of 2011

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.THAMBAN, PATTUVAM HOUSE, KARUVACHERI, P.O.PAYYANNUR, KANNUR-670 307.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

PAYYANNUR MUNCIPALITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY, PAYYANNUR-670 307.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

V.G.ARUN, J.

¶14

W.P.(C)No.31776 of 2011

¶15

Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2019

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner, who is the owner of land having an extent of 30 ¾ cents in R.S.No.243/4 in Payyannur Municipality had submitted an application for obtaining building permit, for the purpose of construction of a Cottage Industrial Building. The application was rejected as per Ext P4 stating the reason that in the draft Detailed Town Planning Scheme of Payyannur Municipality the land in question is set apart for construction of park, open space etc.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends

¶19

that, with regard to the nearby property, the petitioner had submitted an application for building permit for the purpose of construction of a residential building. The application having been rejected on similar grounds, he had agitated the matter before this court and before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Even though the Tribunal interfered with the rejection, the building permit was not granted and the petitioner

¶20

W.P.(C)No.31776 of 2011 3

¶21

agitated the issue once again before this court, which culminated in Ext P6 judgment whereby this court directed to consider the building permit application of the petitioner to be taken up, considered and granted, if it is otherwise in order, without reference to the Town Planning Scheme. It is submitted that pursuant to the direction contained in Ext P6 order, building permit was issued by the respondent Municipality. The learned counsel contends that in the light of Ext P6 judgment and the undisputed fact that building permit is granted with respect to an adjacent property, the petitioner is entitled to the building permit he had applied for under Ext P2.

¶22

The learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits

¶23

that as on date no detailed Town Planning Scheme is in force, with respect to the Payyannur Municipality and therefore, the Municipality would be willing to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner afresh. It is pointed out that it would be appropriate if the petitioner submits a fresh application, considering the efflux of time after submission of Ext P2.

¶24

In the light of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, I am inclined to dispose of

¶25

W.P.(C)No.31776 of 2011 4

¶26

the Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to file a fresh application for building permit, for carrying out construction in R.S.No. 243/4 in Payyannur Municipality, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such an application being filed, the respondent Municipality shall take up the application, consider the same, without reference to the Detailed Town Planning Scheme and render a final decision thereon within a period of one month, provided the application is otherwise in order. For the purpose of such reconsideration, Ext P4 is quashed.

¶27

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶28

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

¶29

cms

¶30

W.P.(C)No.31776 of 2011 5

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER'S EXTS:

¶33

EXT.P1: COPY OF ASSIGNMENT DEED DTD.8.12.2006 TOGETHER WITH BASIC TAX RECEIPT.

¶34

EXT. P2: COPY OF PLAN FOR COTTAGE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶35

EXT P3: COPY OF THE CHECK LIST

¶36

EXT P4: COPY OF MEMO DTD 8.11.2011

¶37

EXT P5: COPY OF MEMO DTD 1.11.2008

¶38

EXT P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 2.7.2009 IN WP(C) NO.18537/2009

¶39

EXT P7: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD 10.4.2008 IN WP(C) NO.12665 OF 2008

¶40

¶41

EXT P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 16.6.2008 IN WP(C) NO.15337/2008

¶42

EXT P10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 25.6.2008 IN WP(C) NO.15077/2008

¶43

RESPONDENT'S EXTS : NIL

¶44

/TRUE COPY/

¶45

P.S.TO JUDGE

¶46

cms

Thamban K. v. Payyannur Muncipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thamban K. v. Payyannur Muncipality

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

B. Rajendra Kumar Vs the Airport Authority of India

Ansar, Vs State of Kerala

Afsal @ Afsar, Vs State of Kerala

Pushpalatha E.V. Vs the Kerala Agricultural University

P.S.Indu Vs State of Kerala

Shylaja T.P. & Another Vs Mahatma Gandhi University and Another