Allowed

Abdul Rehim v. the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala HC21 Nov 2019WP(C)/6947/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to consider the petitioner's applicatuon under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act for a purchase notice. The petitioner sought to construct a residential house but faced rejection due to future development project requirements. The Court ordered the authority to dispose of the notice within one month.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P15 purchase notice application directed to be considered by the competent Authority within one month from the judgment date.

Abdul Rehim Vs the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.6947 OF 2019(P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ABDUL REHIM, S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, KODIYIL VEEDU, MATHIPPURAM, PALLIVILAKOM, HARBOUR ROAD, VIZHINJAM - P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. NOW RESIDING AT V.P. IX/926, PUTHENVILA, VIZHINJAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033

¶11

2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, VIZHINJAM ZONAL OFFICE, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 521

¶12

3 THE MEMBER SECRETARY, KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

¶13

BY ADV.

¶14

SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION, R1, R2 ADV. SRI.M.P.PRAKASH SC, KCZMA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.6947 OF 2019(P)

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P7, as per which, his application for a building permit seeking permission to construct a residential house in his property, comprised of in Re-Survey No.70/1-9 of Vizhinjam Village, has been rejected solely for the reason that the area in question is included in the “Vizhinjam-Kovalam Development Project” and therefore, that sufficient setback has not been shown in the Plan, so as to have the road in front of it widened in the future.

¶20

The petitioner says that Ext.P7 is untenable in law, but that he had preferred Ext.P15 purchase notice under Section 67 (1) of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 and that the same has been refused to be considered, as is evident from Ext.P16 reply, merely for the reason that this writ petition is pending. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P15 be directed to be taken up and disposed of by the competent Authority without any further delay.

¶21

WP(C).No.6947 OF 2019(P)

¶22

¶23

Shri.N.Nandakumara Menon; learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Shri.P.K Manojkumar-learned counsel appearing for the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, submits that though there is no legal impediment in Ext.P15 being taken up and disposed of, it has not been done only with deference to this Court, because the petitioner had not obtained any orders from this Court before making the statutory purchase notice. The learned Senior Counsel says that if this Court is so inclined, the competent Authority of the Corporation will take up Ext.P15 and dispose of it not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶24

It is obvious from the afore narration that the respondents have taken the stand that the property of the petitioner cannot be allowed to be constructed upon merely because it has been included as part of the area required for the afore mentioned Development Project. That said, as is clear from Ext.P3, the petitioner has already been granted necessary clearance by the Kerala Coastal Zone

¶25

WP(C).No.6947 OF 2019(P)

¶26

¶27

Management Authority and hence, except for the objections shown in Ext.P7, nothing else remains against the grant of building permit. Going by the judgments of this Court in District Town Planner, Malappuram and Others v. Vinod and Others [2019 (3) KHC 673] and Regional Town Planner & Another v. Muhammed Rasheed & Others [2019 (3) KHC 989], in such circumstances, the owner of a land certainly obtains the right to approach the competent Authority under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act. In fact, the petitioner has done so through Ext.P15 but the same has not been considered by the competent Authority, as is clear from Ext.P16.

¶28

In the afore circumstances, I am certainly of the view that the competent Authority of the Corporation must consider Ext.P15 application of the petitioner in terms of law; and for much purpose, even though the statutory period is now over I deem it appropriate to grant them a further month's time to issue orders thereon, taking into account Ext.P16 reply given by them earlier. It is so ordered.

¶29

WP(C).No.6947 OF 2019(P)

¶30

¶31

Needless to say, if the Corporation rejects Ext.P15 purchase notice or does not issue appropriate orders on it

¶32

within the time granted herein, the Secretary of the Corporation will be obligated to take up the application of the petitioner for building permit and dispose of the same de hors the rigour of the afore mentioned Development Project and issue appropriate orders thereon, after following due procedure, without any delay, but not later than one month after the period granted by this judgment for consideration of the petitioner's purchase notice expires.

¶33

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

ska

¶38

WP(C).No.6947 OF 2019(P)

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF 7/2013 DATED SPECIAL TAHSI STATION, THIR	THE 19-2 LDAR UVAN	PURCHASE CERTIFICATE -2013 ISSUED BY THE (LAND REFORMS), CIVIL ANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF DATED 21-3-20	THE 13	TAX RECEIPT
EXHIBIT P2 A	TRUE COPY OF 7.5.2016.	THE	TAX RECEIPT DATED
EXHIBIT P2 B	TRUE COPY OF 18.4.2017	THE	TAX RECEIPT DATED
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPO	THE NDEN	CRZ CLEARANCE REPORT FROM T DATED 22-2-2017
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF 1064 OF 2018	THE DATE	JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. D 4-4-2018
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF DATED 25-7-20	THE 18	APPLICATION
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF DATED 23-8-20	THE 18	REPRESENTATION
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF DATED 17-10-2	THE 018	INTIMATION
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF	THE	RENT DEED DATED 5-4-2017
EXHIBIT P9	PHOTOS OF THE	CON	STRUCTION
EXHIBIT P10	PHOTO OF THE	COFF	EE HUT
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF MANORAMA DATE	THE D 5-	NEWSPAPER DAILY MALAYALA 1-2019.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF	THE	NOTICE DATED 02-08-2019
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF DATED 16-09-2	THE 019	REPLY NOTICE

Abdul Rehim v. the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rehim v. the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

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

Shiny Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Chandran K.P. Vs the Olavanna Grama Panchayath

Biju.M.D., Vs Kochi Municipal Corporation

Salmathul Shamseera, Vs the Local Level Monitoring Committee

Jyothi Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Daya General Hospital Private Limited Vs the District Collector