Allowed

Rajeev S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Nov 2019WP(C)/9551/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the rejection order issued by the Municipality regarding the petitioner's building permit application. It found the reason (property included in Master Plan) impermissible, logic-defying, and discriminatory against the petitioner compared to other owners of the same land.

What did the court decide?

Order set aside Ext.P6; directed Secretary to reconsider the application taking note of Ext.P4 and P9 after affording opportunity of hearing; to issue appropriate order within one month.

Rajeev S. Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.9551 OF 2018(T)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RAJEEV S. AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.SUDARSHANAN NAIR, 'RAJEEVAM', KARIPPOORU P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695541, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SUDASHANAN NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, 'RAJEEVAM', KARIPPOORU P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695541.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR SRI.S.JATHIN DAS

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY NEDUMANGAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695541, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

*3 MUNICIPAL ENGINEER NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY, NEDUMANGAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695541. ADDL DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, R4 REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, UPPER ZONE, HOUSING BOARD OFFICE, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

***(ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10/12/18 IN I.A.NO.1/18 IN WP(C)9551/18.)**

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY- SR.G.P, SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN-SC, SRI. P.RAMAKRISHNAN-SC.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.9551 OF 2018(T)

¶17

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P6 proceedings issued by the Secretary of Nedumangad Municipality, rejecting his application for building permit in his property comprised of 5 cents of land and asserts that this order is illegal and unlawful.

¶20

The petitioner says that his property was part of a larger extent, which was originally owned by a certain Sri.Vijayakumar, who had earlier obtained a building permit, as is evident from Ext.P4, for construction of a building on the entire plot. He says that, however, Sri.Vijayakumar fell into bad times and could not make the construction and that he later sold the property as two plots, one to himself and the other to a certain Sri.Dominic. He says that the aforementioned Sri.Dominic thereafter made an application for building permit, which was granted through Ext.P9; but that when he made the application, it was rejected, through Ext.P6 saying that the property is included in the Master Plan. He submits that the reasons in Ext.P6 are totally untenable and contrary to law, particularly because Sri.Dominic has already been allowed to

¶21

WP(C).No.9551 OF 2018(T)

¶22

¶23

construct in the adjoining plot, which was part of the larger extent originally in the hands of Sri.Vijayakumar. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P6 be set aside.

¶24

I have heard Sri.Sreekanth S. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.Amminikutty, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

¶25

When I consider the materials on record and in particular Ext.P6, which is impugned herein, it is without doubt that the said document does not say why the petitioner's application for building permit has been rejected, except that his property is included in the Master Plan. I am unable to comprehend what this means, since when a Master Plan for a Local Self Government Institution is published, every property within its territory would be included in one manner or the other in the said Plan; and therefore, to reject an application merely saying that a property is included in the Master Plan defies logic and reason.

¶26

That apart, as is clear from Exts.P4 and P9, the Municipality had granted permit to Sri.Vijayakumar while he was the owner of this property along with a larger extent and also to its subsequent purchaser - Sri.Dominic. I cannot

¶27

WP(C).No.9551 OF 2018(T)

¶28

¶29

therefore, understand why the petitioner has been singled out and his application rejected, even though it is concededly only five cents in extent.

¶30

I am, therefore, of the view that the reasons in Ext.P6 cannot find my favour and that prima facie, there appears to be a clear discrimination with respect to the petitioner's property, which cannot be countenanced. I am of the consequent opinion that the petitioner's application for building permit must be reconsidered by the Municipality, specifically taking note of Exts.P4 and P9.

¶31

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P6 and direct the Secretary of the 2^nd respondent - Municipality to reconsider the petitioner's application in terms of law, adverting to Exts.P4 and P9 and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner; and then issue an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

SD/-

¶33

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

¶36

WP(C).No.9551 OF 2018(T)

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1-	TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3368/14 DATED 26/12/2014 IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2-	TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3580/13 DATED 06/12/2013 PURCHASED BY S.VIJAYAKUMAR.
EXHIBIT P3-	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11/11/2014 IN W.P. (C)NO.13160/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE NAME OF S.VIJAYAKUMAR.
EXHIBIT P4-	TRUE COPY OF PERMIT NO.BA-427/13-14 DATED 14/10/2015 ISSUED TO S.VIJAYAKUMAR.
EXHIBIT P5-	TRUE COPY OF PLAN SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3
EXHIBIT P6-	TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF REJECTION NO.TP1/7785/17 DATED 22/01/2018.
EXHIBIT P7-	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 18/01/2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION OFFICER, NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPAL SECRETARY.
EXHIBIT P8-	TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.474 DATED 18/01/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9-	TRUE COPY OF REPLY NO.DPI/TPI/474/19 DATED 13/02/2019 ISSUED BY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10-	TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK STARTED BY THE PETITIONER'S ADJACENT OWNER.

Rajeev S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev S. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Elsy Grigorious Vs State of Kerala

Kamaludheen Juma Masjid and Madrassa, Vs the Secretary , Kattakambal Grama Panchayath

Chekkini Vs the State of Kerala

K. H. Abdul Rasheed, Vs Thirumittacode Grama Panchayath

A.C.George Vs the Corporation of Kochi

Renjitha.K.M Vs the Punchayath Secretary