Disposed

Subahan v. Palakkad Municipality

Kerala HC4 Nov 2020WP(C)/21026/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeking regularization of residential building on paddy land was told coverage exceeded 50%. Court directed petitioner to reduce coverage to below 50% by demolition to qualify for regularization, correcting property extent to 4.80 cents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to reduce building coverage below 50% and cure defects; direction to respondent to reconsider application upon compliance.

Subahan Vs Palakkad Municipality — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.21026 OF 2020(C)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SUBAHAN. A, S/O ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED 40 YEARS, AYISHA MANZIL, MUNAVARA NAGAR, POOLAKKAD, PALAKKAD P.O, PIN-678001.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD 680001. 2 THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, PALAKKAD P.O., 680001. 3 DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISED COMMITTEE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD-680001.

¶11

SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, STANDING COUNSEL R2 BY SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

W.P.(C)No.21026 of 2020

¶13

¶14

W.P.(C)No.21026 of 2020

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner owns a property measuring 4.80 cents. The property of the petitioner is a paddy land in terms of the revenue records and also in terms of the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). Since the petitioner has no other land to put up a residential house, he preferred an application for permission under the Act to put up a residential building in the said property. The application submitted by the petitioner in this regard was allowed by the third respondent as per Ext.P1 order. It appears that in the meanwhile, the petitioner has constructed the building proposed by him in the property without obtaining building permit from the first respondent Municipality. As such, after obtaining Ext.P1 order, the petitioner preferred an application for regularisation of the building constructed by him. Ext.P2 is the application. Ext.P2 application has now been rejected by the empowered committee. Ext.P3 is the communication issued to the petitioner in this regard by the second respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 communication.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶18

W.P.(C)No.21026 of 2020

¶19

¶20

A report has been filed by the second respondent in this matter. The stand taken in the report, in essence, is that though the petitioner owns 4.80 cents, he is granted permission by the third respondent to put up building only in an extent of 4 cents out of 4.8 cents; that if the extent of the property of the petitioner is reckoned as 4 cents, the coverage of the building of the petitioner would come to 62.58%; that if the extent of the property of the petitioner is reckoned as 4.80 cents, the coverage of the building would come to 52%, and that as per the norms, buildings, the coverage of which exceeds 50% cannot be regularized.

¶21

The Act confers authority on the third respondent to grant permission to put up residential buildings in paddy lands not exceeding 5 cents. Ext.P1 order indicates that the third respondent has found that the petitioner is entitled to the permission sought for by him, and permission has been accorded to him. In the absence of any special reason for the third respondent to mention the extent of property of the petitioner as 4 cents in Ext.P1 order, the extent aforesaid in Ext.P1 order can only be on account of a mistake. Needless to say, the same cannot be regarded as the extent of the land of the petitioner by the committee considering the application for regularization of the building constructed by the petitioner. In other words, the extent of the property of the petitioner is bound to be taken as 4.8 cents. But, even if the extent of the property of the petitioner is taken as 4.8 cents, the coverage would come to 52%.

¶22

W.P.(C)No.21026 of 2020

¶23

¶24

Having been faced with the aforesaid situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to demolish the portion of the building so as to bring the coverage below 50%. If the petitioner demolishes a portion of the building and brings down its coverage below 50%, there cannot be any impediment in considering the application for regularisation submitted by the petitioner.

¶25

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :

¶26

(1) The petitioner shall bring the coverage of the building below 50% by taking appropriate measures, treating the extent of the property as 4.8 cents, and give a communication to that effect to the second respondent.

¶27

(2) On receipt of the communication referred to in direction (1) above, the second respondent shall cause an inspection of the building of the petitioner to be made, and if it is found that the coverage of the building is brought down below 50%, the application of the petitioner shall be considered afresh, treating the extent of the property as 4.8 cents.

¶28

(3) The petitioner shall, in the meanwhile, cure defect Nos.1 and 2 shown in Ext.P3 communication.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

rkj

W.P.(C)No.21026 of 2020

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT NUMBERED AS T.A(7) 8448/11 DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGULARIZATION DATED 18.12.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.06.2020.

Subahan v. Palakkad Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subahan v. Palakkad 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

Martin Thomas, Vs the District Collector

Sreenivasan Nair P Vs Perumbavoor Municipality

Muhammed Rafeeq, Vs Vengola Grama Panchayath

Hameed, Vs the State of Kerala

K.P.Annie Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

K. T. Eldhose, Vs State of Kerala