Allowed

Patric D' Coutho v. Alappuzha Municipality

Kerala HC10 Nov 2020WP(C)/1971/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside impugned demolition orders in connected writ petitions regarding a building dispute between adjoining relatives. The court noted a decade-long delay and the fact that constructions were completed, deeming it appropriate for the parties to bury their differences and seek regularization rather than face demolition.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders for demolition are set aside; the Municipality is directed to regularize the constructions.

Patric D' Coutho Vs Alappuzha… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1971 OF 2012(V)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 PATRIC D' COUTHO, AGED 43, S/O. LATE JOHN D'COUTHO, JANATHA QUARTERS, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA-12, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY, ALPHONSA FIGARAIS, AGED 62, JANATHA QUARTERS, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA-12.

¶8

2 ALPHONSE FIGAROUS, AGED 62, JANATHA QUARTERS, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA – 12

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SMT.RENJINI RAJENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA.

¶13

3 FLORA CHRISTHUDAS, AGED 79, W/O. LATE CHRISTUDAS, JANATHA QUARTERS, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA-12. R1 BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, M.C.,ALP R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.ANEESH JAMES R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, M.C.ALP R1 BY SRI.AZAD BABU, SC, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.11.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).6971/2012(V), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C). Nos. 1971 OF 2012(V)& 6971 OF 2012

¶16

..2..

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶20

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶21

WP(C).No.6971 OF 2012

¶22

PETITIONER:

¶23

FLORA CHRISTUDAS, W/O.LATE CHRISTHUDAS, AGED 79, JANATHA QUARTERS, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA-12.

¶24

BY ADVS. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.ANEESH JAMES SRI.P.PRIJITH

¶25

RESPONDENTS:

¶26

1 THE ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-688001.

¶27

2 THE SECRETARY ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY PIN-688001.

¶28

3 PATRIC DCOUTHO JANATHA QUARTERS SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA-12, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY ALPHONSA FIGOROUS, JANATHA QUARTERS, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA-12.

¶29

4 ALPHONSA FIGOROUS JANATHA QUARTERS, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 001

¶30

R1 BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, M.C.,ALP R1, R4 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY R1 BY ADV. SMT.RENJINI RAJENDRAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, M.C.ALP R1 BY SRI.AZAD BABU, SC, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶32

W.P.(C). Nos. 1971 OF 2012(V)& 6971 OF 2012

¶33

..3..

¶34

10.11.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).1971/2012(V), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

W.P.(C). Nos. 1971 OF 2012(V)& 6971 OF 2012

¶36

..4..

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

[ WP(C).1971/2012, WP(C).6971/2012 ]

¶39

Dated this the 10th day of November 2020

¶40

The petitioners in both the writ petitions are very close

¶41

relatives. They are adjoining owners. They raised complaint against each other before the Municipality. The Municipality initiated actions and passed orders for demolition of the constructions in violation of the Kerala Municipality Building

¶42

Rules. The constructions have been admittedly, taken pursuant to a building permit. The petitioners in both the writ petitions have already completed the constructions. In regard to the violation of setbacks the parties can condone. The parties being near relatives, it

¶43

is appropriate that they bury their differences at this distance of time. More than a decade is lapsed, since the dispute arose. Since, the petitioners in both the writ petitions have completed the constructions, it is appropriate that the impugned orders are set aside, paving way for settlement between them. I have not

¶44

W.P.(C). Nos. 1971 OF 2012(V)& 6971 OF 2012

¶45

..5..

¶46

expressed anything on the merits of the proceedings impugned before this Court. The parties are free to enjoy the property as though the impugned orders are set aside. The Municipality can regularise the constructions, in accordance with law, as though the parties have no objection as against the construction made by each other.

¶47

These writ petitions are disposed of as above.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

¶52

W.P.(C). Nos. 1971 OF 2012(V)& 6971 OF 2012

¶53

..6..

¶54

¶55

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶56

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 29/07/2008 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/06/2010 IN WPC 13217/2010 OF THIS COURT.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28/08/2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/01/2010 IN WPC NO.2595/2010 OF THIS COURT.
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF 406(1) ORDER OF 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/07/2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/08/2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25/08/2011 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶57

EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
	10/08/2011 IN IA 938/2011 IN APPEAL
	586/2011 BEFORE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL
	SELF GOVERNMENT, TRIVANDRUM.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN
	APPEAL NO.630/2011 BEFORE LOCAL SELF
	GOVERNMENT TRIBUNAL AT TRIVANDRUM.
EXHIBIT P12	RUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED

¶58

W.P.(C). Nos. 1971 OF 2012(V)& 6971 OF 2012

¶59

..7..

¶60

17/12/2011 IN APPEAL 627 AND 630/2011 BEFORE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶61

W.P.(C). Nos. 1971 OF 2012(V)& 6971 OF 2012

¶62

..8..

¶63

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6971/2012

¶64

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶65

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.E.5 B.339/08.09.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF PLAN ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF PROVISIONAL ORDER UNDER SEC. 406(1) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT DATED 19/08/2009.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER IN IA NO.6081/09, 4014/09 AND 5550/09 IN O.S. 541/2009 DATED 04/01/10.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN APPEAL NO.445/2010 DATED 14/06/2010 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 29/06/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.20756/2010 DATED 20/07/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CCC NO.1077/2010 DATED 23/09/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E-5-17619/2009 DATED 28/08/2010 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶66

W.P.(C). Nos. 1971 OF 2012(V)& 6971 OF 2012

¶67

..9..

¶68

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 23/12/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN APPEAL NO.909/2010 DATED 10/02/2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 01/07/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. E5-17619/09 DATED 01/07/11 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL NO.627/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT IN APPEAL NO.627/98 TO 2011 DATED 11/10/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2. EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL NO.630/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS. EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER IN APPEAL NOS.627/2011 AND 630/2011 DATED 17/12/2011 OF TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM.

Patric D' Coutho v. Alappuzha Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patric D' Coutho v. Alappuzha Municipality

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

Ramesh M Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Saidhalavi Vs State of Kerala

Udaysankar T Vs State of Kerala

Joy Varghese Vs the District Collector

Shanavas.P.S Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Alex Mathew Vs Principal Secretary, Department of Local Self Government