Writ petition challenging a municipality notice and provisional order was dismissed as not pressed because the petitioner had purchased the adjacent property owned by the complainant who had lodged the original complaint.
Writ petition dismissed as not pressed; interim stay vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942
WP(C).No.15883 OF 2016(I)
PETITIONER/S:
WILLIAM GEORGE, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, MUTTATH HOUSE, KIDANGOOR KARA, THURAVOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA, (EMPLOYED IN MUSCAT AND IS REPRESENTED BY HIS SISTER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MRS.SHEELA SHAJI,AGED 55 YEARS, KUZHIAMPURATHU HOUSE, ALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA SMT.SYAMA MOHAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ALUVA MUNICIPALITY
ALUVA,PIN-683 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3 MR.CHEEKU S/O.RAPEL, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PRIYADARSHINI ROAD, ALUVA-683 101.
R1 BY SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, ALUVA MUNICIPALITY R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-:2:-
W.P.(C).No.15883 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is stated to be the absolute owner of 1.21 Ares of propery in Re.Sy.No.11/2 (Old Sy.No.515/5A/2 of Aluva West Village, on the strength of Sale Deed No.3243/1/2007 dated 22.05.2007 of the Sub Registrar Office, Aluva, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 notice dated 09.03.2016 and Ext.P7 provisional order dated 22.03.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent, who is the Secretary of the 1st respondent Municipality. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the petitioner was issued with Ext.P6 notice and Ext.P7 provisional order based on a complaint made by the 3rd respondent regarding the construction of a commercial building by the petitioner in the above mentioned property.
W.P.(C).No.15883 of 2016
-:3:-
24.06.2016.
“3. The petitioner was granted building permit, B.A No.65/200809 for the construction of a three storied building with basement, ground floor and first floor having total built up area of 187.30 Sq.Metres. Petitioner had availed the benefit of special provisions regarding construction of building in small plots vide Rule 60 of KMBR, 1999, which restricts the total number of floors to three. Subsequently, the Municipality has granted partial occupancy for the ground floor of the building and petitioner has remitted property tax for such portion.
-:4:-
W.P.(C).No.15883 of 2016
permit is issued to the petitioner granting the benefit of special provision for the construction in small plots and hence the total number of floors are to be limited to three but the petitioner has constructed a four storied building. There are other violations also. The Municipality has acted in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and there is nothing illegal in Ext.P6 notice and Ext.P7 provisional order issued by the Municipality. Ext.P7 is a provisional order and hence the challenge against the same is premature and not maintainable.”
27.07.2020 to dismiss this writ petition as 'not pressed'.
the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already purchased the adjacent property owned by the 3rd respondent, who was the complainant before the Municipality, and therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything as to the legality or otherwise of the construction of commercial building by
-:5:-
W.P.(C).No.15883 of 2016
the petitioner, which is the subject matter of Ext.P6 provisional order and the 2nd respondent will be free to proceed further, in case there is
any statutory violations in the construction of that building.
Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE
das
-:6:-
W.P.(C).No.15883 of 2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXT.P1 | COPY OF PARTIAL OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DTD.15.5.2012. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2 | COPY OF OWNERSHP CERTIFICATE DTD.18.5.2012. |
| EXT.P3 | COPY OF EXTENSION ORDER DTD.15.5.2012 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P4 | COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DTD.21.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P5 | PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE BUILDING AS ON TODAY. |
| EXT.P6 | COPY OF NOTICE DTD.9.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. |
| EXT.P7 | COPY OF PROVISIONAL ORDER DTD.22.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P8 | COPY OF REPLY DTD.26.3.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the Municipality's notice and provisional order should be dismissed as not pressed given the purchase of the complainant's adjacent proper
3 provisions across 3 enactments
WILLIAM GEORGE
ALUVA MUNICIPALITY
SECRETARY ALUVA MUNICIPALITY
MR.CHEEKU
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
