Allowed

G. Nagendran, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2020WP(C)/31855/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a building permit application by the Corporation of Cochin, which demanded an order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The Court applied a precedent, holding that the Land Utilisation Order does not apply to land covered by a Town Planning Scheme, and directed the Corporation to consider the application without such requisites.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the Corporation of Cochin directed to consider the building permit application within four weeks without insisting on the KLU order or

G. Nagendran, Vs State of Kerala — 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

MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.31855 OF 2019(F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

G. NAGENDRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. S. GOPALAKRISHNAN, R/O. 49/812/A3, GOKUL MAHAL, MERCY GARDENS, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI-682 026.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶12

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, PIN-682 001.

¶13

4 CORPORATION OF COCHIN, CORPORATION OFFICE, EDAPPALLY, PIN-682 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SUDHEESH KUMAR, SC SRI.M.R.DHANIL, GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.31855 OF 2019(F)

¶17

-2-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 7th day of December 2020

¶20

The petitioner submitted an application for building

¶21

permit on 14.09.2017 before the Kochi Corporation.

¶22

The application has been rejected stating that

¶23

the petitioner requires an order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order).

¶24

The petitioner's land is comprised in Sy.Nos.113/6/1, 113/7A2, 113/7A4 and 113/7A5 of Edappally North Village. Admittedly, the land is recorded as converted land in the Data Bank.

¶25

The petitioner's application was prior to the incorporation of Section 27A to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008). Therefore, Section 27A of Act 28 of 2008 cannot be made applicable on such application submitted before the Corporation, prior to incorporation of Section 27A. The

¶26

WP(C).No.31855 OF 2019(F)

¶27

-3-

¶28

only question is that whether the petitioner is required to

¶29

obtain an order under KLU from the Collector under KLU Order.

¶30

The petitioner's land is included in Subashnagar Housing Society layout, approved by the Chief Town Planner. It is also covered under the Town Planning Scheme. This Court in [2020 (6) KHC 420] Shaji Chacko v.

¶31

State of Kerala and others held as follows:

¶32

15. In the light of the finding that KLUO would not apply in respect of the land which is covered under the Town Planning Act, the impugned order has to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. Treating the land in question as dry land for all practical purposes, the Corporation is directed to consider the application for building permit without insisting for orders under KLUO and payment under Section 27A of the amended Act 28 of 2008.......

¶33

In the light of the judgment as above, this Court

¶34

is of the view that an order under KLU cannot be insisted in

¶35

respect of the land covered by the Town Planning Scheme.

¶36

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The

¶37

impugned order is set aside. The Corporation is directed to consider the application for building permit, in accordance

¶38

WP(C).No.31855 OF 2019(F)

¶39

-4-

¶40

with law, within a period of four weeks, without insisting an order under KLU or payment under Section 27A of Act 28

¶41

of 2008.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶45

akv

¶46

WP(C).No.31855 OF 2019(F)

¶47

-5-

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 10/06/2002 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.2541/2002 OF SRO, EDAPPALLY. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED NO.741/16 OF SRO, EDAPPALLY. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL GIVEN BY THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 26/11/1986. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER'S LAND COMPRISED IN SY. NOS.113-6-1, 113./7A2, 113/7A4 AND 113/7A5 OF EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26/04/2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25/06/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 01/09/2018 OF AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, VYTTILA SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24/09/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶51

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:NIL.

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

PA TO JUDGE

G. Nagendran, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Nagendran, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Murukan, Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Wasim Ahammed, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Southern Associates, Vs Assistant Divisional Officer

Thomas Varghese Vs the Election Commissioner

Kala Rajagopalan Vs Tripunithura Municipality

Shyja K.V. Vs Kerala State Election Commission