Disposed

P.Murukan, v. Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Kerala HC4 Dec 2020WP(C)/356/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court directed the Regional Town Planner to reconsider the petitioner's hospital building proposal under the interim development order treating the area as mixed residential zone. The petitioner is prohibited from constructing on land classified as paddy without competent authority approval.

What did the court decide?

Regional Town Planner directed to consider proposal and pass orders within one month; Corporation to decide permit application within one month thereafter.

P.Murukan, Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation — 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 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.356 OF 2020(T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.MURUKAN, AGED 64 YEARS S/O. LATE SRI. S. POTTIVELU, T.C.37/2019/1, APRA-61, PRASANTH NAGAR, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶11

2 SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶12

3 REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER, O/O. THE REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN695001.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION

¶14

ADV. SRI.S GOPINATHAN SR GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.356 OF 2020(T)

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 4th day of December 2020

¶20

The petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P7

¶21

decision of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. By the impugned decision, the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit has been rejected. The petitioner is proposed to establish a hospital building in the land. Reason for rejection was that the area, where the proposed construction is to be undertaken, is included in the green strip area as per the sanctioned master plan for Thiruvananthapuram city. As per the master plan, hospital is not permissible in green strip area.

¶22

There is no dispute to the fact that the Government has approved an interim development order as per Ext.P4. As per the interim development order, it is treated as a mixed residential zone. According to the petitioner, there is no difficulty in considering the application for building permit in that area.

¶23

A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1776/2019,

¶24

held that the interim development order will hold the field as far as the

¶25

WP(C).No.356 OF 2020(T)

¶26

¶27

construction, pending final approval of the master plan. If that be so, there is no difficulty in considering the application in accordance with the interim development order.

¶28

However, in the statement filed before this Court by the Corporation, it is stated that the petitioner's land in Survey Nos.929/A, 931 and 934 are included as a paddy land in BTR. If any area is included as a paddy land in BTR, without regularisation of the land in accordance with law, the petitioner cannot undertake any construction. The petitioner has undertaken before this Court that the petitioner will exclude such extent of land which is included as a paddy land in BTR from the proposed construction. The said submission is recorded. It is further submitted that the land will be utilised, only after obtaining necessary orders from the competent authority.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances as above, I am of the view that the 3^rd respondent shall consider the proposal of the petitioner and he shall consider whether the construction of the hospital can be permitted as per the interim development order. Necessary orders shall be passed by the 3^rd respondent and communicate the same to the petitioner and the Corporation. It shall be done within a period of one month. Thereafter, the Corporation shall

¶30

WP(C).No.356 OF 2020(T)

¶31

¶32

take a decision on the building permit application within a further period of one month. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not undertake any construction in any land which is included as a paddy

¶33

land in BTR without the backing of an order passed by the competent

¶34

authority.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

SAS/04/12/2020

¶40

WP(C).No.356 OF 2020(T)

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE TAX RECEIPT NO.13827/12 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 05/08/2019 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE TAX RECEIPT NO. 1382711 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 05/08/2019 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE EXISTING SCENARIO MAP, SHOWING THE DEVELOPMENTS ON BOTH SIDE OF NH 47 BY PASS, THE COSMOPOLITAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR AND IT HUB OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NEAR THE SITE IN QUESTION FOR A DISTANCE OF 650 METERS ON BOTH SIDES. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.53/14/LSGD DATED 16/02/2014 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM DEVELOPMENT ORDER NO. GO (MS) NO.180/2017/LSGD DATED 11/09/2017. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PART MAP OF THE PROPOSED LAND USE MAP ATTACHED TO THE INTERIM DEVELOPMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY IS SITUATED. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.34123/2018 DATED 05/11/2018. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CORPORATION DATED 04/02/2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/03/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26/12/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TALUK SURVEYOR ALONG WITH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.972/2016 DATED 29/11/2016.

¶45

WP(C).No.356 OF 2020(T)

¶46

¶47

EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 04.12.2019 WITH COVERING LETTER ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DATED 26.12.2019 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A NO.1776/2019 DATED 26.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 10.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.03.2020 OF THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.7033/2020 DATED 20.10.2020
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.21513/2017 DATED 19.10.2020

¶48

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-NIL

P.Murukan, v. Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Murukan, v. Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

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

G.Jayakumar, Vs State of Kerala

Hameed Vs Ozhur Grama Panchayath

Betsie Gladson Vs Additional District Magistrate

Wasim Ahammed, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Southern Associates, Vs Assistant Divisional Officer

Ajina A.S. Vs the District Collector