Allowed

Haneefa v. the Municipal Secretary

Kerala HC18 Dec 2020WP(C)/14778/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's application for a commercial building permit. The Court held that since the land is not included in the Data Bank, it cannot be retained as a paddy field. The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to consider the application within one month.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside; the application for building permit must be considered within one month without treating the land as a paddy field.

Haneefa Vs the Municipal Secretary — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.14778 OF 2020(V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

HANEEFA, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.BHAVA KUNU, KOOTHADIPARAMBIL VEEDU, CHITTAR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY, NEW MUNICIPAL BUILDING COMPLEX, AZHOOR ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA -689 645.

¶11

2 PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW MUNICIPAL BUILDING COMPLEX, AZHOOR ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.

¶12

3 THE TOWN PLANNER, TOWN PLANNER OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 645.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM PACHAYIL, SC, PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY SRI.S GOPINTHAN, SR. GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.14778 OF 2020(V)

¶16

-2-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 18th day of December 2020

¶19

The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 decision

¶20

of the 1^st respondent-Municipal Secretary, Pathanamthitta Municipality.

¶21

The land belongs to the petitioner is comprised in Sy.No.P-166/1 of Pathanamthitta Village, Kolencherry Taluk. The petitioner applied for building permit to construct a commercial building. The land is described as a nilam in BTR however, not included in the Data Bank. The petitioner was granted Ext.P2 permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLUO) on 11.10.2018.

¶22

The petitioner's application was rejected stating that as per the Town Planning Scheme, the land has to be retained as a paddy field and therefore, it is stated that the petitioner's application for construction of the commercial building cannot be allowed.

¶23

In para.4 of the counter affidavit, filed by the 3^rd

¶24

WP(C).No.14778 OF 2020(V)

¶25

-3-

¶26

respondent-Town Planner, Pathanamthitta, it is stated that the petitioner's plot falls within the 'paddy field to be retained' zone of the published Development plan for Pathanamthitta and construction of commercial building is prohibited use in that zone.

¶27

If there is any Town Planing Scheme, the petitioner is bound by such scheme. But, it is to be noted that the petitioner's land cannot be treated as a paddy field as it is not included in the Data Bank. Further, the petitioner was granted permission under KLUO to utilise the land for other purposes. If the land cannot be classified as a paddy land, that cannot be retained as a paddy field under the Town Planning Scheme. Town Planning Scheme in regard to zoning as above would apply only if the land is having characteristics to be retained as a paddy land. This Court, in similar circumstances, in Ext.P8 judgment, dated 01.11.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 18809 of 2019, interfered with the similar decision of the Municipality.

¶28

WP(C).No.14778 OF 2020(V)

¶29

-4-

¶30

Having considered the facts and circumstances,

¶31

this Court is of the view that the impugned order is to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. The application for building permit shall be considered by the Secretary not treating the land as a paddy land, in view of the fact that the petitioner has already obtained permission under KLUO and land is not included in the Data Bank. An appropriate decision shall be taken by the Municipal Secretary, in accordance with the building permit and the building rules, within a period of one month.

¶32

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶33

Sd/A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶34

akv

¶35

WP(C).No.14778 OF 2020(V)

¶36

-5-

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

¶40

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.D.O. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.36697/2018. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE THASILDAR. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE TOWN PLANNER DATED 21.05.2019. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(c)NO.18809/2019. EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.12.2019. EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.01.2020.

¶41

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:NIL.

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

PA TO JUDGE

Haneefa v. the Municipal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haneefa v. the Municipal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

George Joseph Vs Sri.Bose Well John

Cheeran Structurals Vs Kavalangad Grama Panchayath

Sainaba Vs the District Collector, Malappuram

V.Govindankutty Vs the District Geologist

V.Govindankutty Vs Director

Johnson Vs State of Kerala