Allowed

Mammudu.a v. the Malappuram Municipality

Kerala HC12 Nov 2019WP(C)/3182/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of building permit due to alleged insufficient setback under an inactive Master Plan. Court held petitioner can issue a purchase notice under Section 67 KTCP Act 2016. If municipality refuses or delays, permit must be considered ignoring Master Plan stipulations.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to move a purchase notice before the competent Authority under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 within two weeks; if refused or orders delayed, p

Mammudu.a Vs the Malappuram Municipality — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.3182 OF 2019(W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MAMMUDU.A AGED 63 YEARS S/O.AYAMU,ARABI HOUSE,PATTARKADAVU.P.O, MALAPPURAM-676519.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.ABDUL JAWAD K. SMT.A.GRANCY JOSE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM-676505

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY MALAPPURAM-676505.

¶12

R1-2 BY SRI.E.S.M.KABEER,SC,MALAPPURAM MUNICIPA

¶13

GP SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.3182 OF 2019 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner has approached this

¶18

Court impugning Ext.P1, as per which, his

¶19

application for a building permit, for making a construction in his property comprised of 44 cents, has been rejected, saying that the petitioner has not left sufficient setback required for the purpose of widening the road in front of it, as per the provisions of the Master

¶20

Plan applicable to the respondentMunicipality.

¶21

The petitioner asserts that the

¶22

Master Plan for the Malappuram

¶23

Municipality has not been operated at all by the said Municipality for the last several decades and that none of the constructions made in the said locality

¶24

have left the setback now required of them. He, therefore, prays that Ext.P1 be set aside.

¶25

In response, the learned Standing

¶26

WP(C).No.3182 OF 2019 3

¶27

Counsel for Malappuram Municipality submits that as long as the Master Plan provides for widening of the road in question, the petitioner will be obligated to leave sufficient setback for this

¶28

purpose; and thus asserts that Ext.P1 has been issued without fault. He, therefore,

¶29

prays that this Writ Petition be

¶30

dismissed.

¶31

submissions, it is ineluctable that the issues like this have already gained the attention of this Court and that judgments have been delivered in District Town

¶32

Planner, Malappuram and Others v. Vinod and Others [2019(3)KHC 673] and Regional Town Planner and Another v. Muhammed Rasheed and Others [2019(3)KHC 987],

¶33

wherein it has been declared that in such cases, the owner of the properties has a right to issue a purchase notice under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country

¶34

WP(C).No.3182 OF 2019 4

¶35

Planning Act,2016 and that if the Municipality, thereafter, do not accede to the same, then the owner's application for building permit will have to be considered de hors the stipulations in the Master Plan. I am sure that the petitioner herein also deserve such opportunity in this Writ Petition.

¶36

petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to move a purchase notice

¶37

before the competent Authority of

¶38

Malappuram Municipality under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act,2016; and if this is done within a

¶39

period of two weeks from the date of

¶40

receipt of a copy of this judgment, the competent Authority of the Municipality

¶41

will consider the same within the

¶42

statutory period and issue appropriate orders thereon in terms of law.

¶43

WP(C).No.3182 OF 2019 5

¶44

Municipality refuses the purchase notice

¶45

or does not issue orders within the statutory period, then its Secretary will be obligated thereafter to reconsider the petitioner's application for building permit, de hors the stipulations of the Master Plan, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month after the statutory period for disposal of the application of the petitioner under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act,2016 expires.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

MC/29.11.19

¶50

WP(C).No.3182 OF 2019 6

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24/01/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/7/2018 IN W.P(C)NO.10904/18. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶54

NIL

¶55

¶56

(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

Mammudu.a v. the Malappuram Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mammudu.a v. the Malappuram Municipality

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

M.a.Anees Vs Karumaloor Grama Panchayath, Represented by Its Secretary

Indian Pentecostal Church Vs the State of Kerala

K.Moudammal Vs Alfas

Sarada, Vs the Mathoor Grama Panchayat

Ravi Vs State of Kerala

Hamza Vs the Secretary