Allowed

Devadas v. the Palakkad Municipality

Kerala HC18 Jan 2021WP(C)/133/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed the rejection of a building permit application by the Palakkad Municipality. The Court directed the Municipality to reconsider the application without the DTP Scheme stipulations, following a purchase notice and a prior judgment regarding the scheme.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Ext.P2 order; Direction to consider building permit application afresh within three weeks without DTP Scheme stipulations.

Devadas Vs the Palakkad Municipality — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.133 OF 2021(N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DEVADAS S/O SUBRAMANIAN,PULIKKAL HOUSE, KOTTEKAD.P.O, PIN-678732,MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.(REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,RAJITH.K.A,AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN,PALIKANDATH HOUSE,KINASSERRI,KADUMTHIRUTHI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT).

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.K.V.WINSTON SMT.ANU JACOB

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,PALAKKAD,PIN-678001.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY,MIUNICIPAL OFFICE,PALAKKAD,PIN-678001.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, PALAKKAD,CIVIL STATION,PALAKKAD, PIN-678001.

¶13

4 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶14

R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SC, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P(C).No.133 of 2021

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, whereby an application for building permit was rejected by the respondent Municipality, on the ground that, the land in question was covered by a District Town Planning Scheme (DTP Scheme), which prevented the petitioner from effecting constructions on the said land. In the Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that based on Ext.P6 judgment, he has issued a purchase notice to the respondent Municipality asking them to purchase the land in connection with the DTP Scheme aforesaid and despite the lapse of 60 days from the date of the said notice, the respondent Municipality has not deemed it necessary to take any steps for purchasing of the land in question for the purposes of the Scheme. It is his submission, therefore, that in the light of Ext.P6 judgment, the respondent Municipality is now obliged to consider his application for building permit afresh, in the light of the said judgment taking note of their inaction in the matter of purchase of the land for the the purposes of the DTP Scheme.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶21

W.P(C).No.133 of 2021

¶22

¶23

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, and finding the contentions of the petitioner to be in line with the directions in Ext.P6 judgment, I dispose the Writ Petition by quashing Ext.P2 order of the respondent Municipality and directing them to consider the building permit application preferred by the petitioner afresh, in the light of the directions issued in Ext.P6 judgment and taking note of the purchase notice that was not responded to by the respondent Municipality within the time permitted under the statute. The respondent Municipality shall consider the application untrammelled by the stipulations in the DTP Scheme pertaining to the land in question and pass orders on the application within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if need be after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment, before the respondent Municipality, for further action.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶26

mns/18.01.2021

¶27

W.P(C).No.133 of 2021

¶28

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.41717455 DATED 22.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,PALAKKAD II VILLAGE,PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27TH OF AUGUST 2019 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED JUNE 17,2020 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED OCTOBER 20,2020 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,PALAKKAD EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE NOTICE DATED 7 SEPTEMBER 2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2019 IN WP(C)NO.30841 OF 2017 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶32

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶33

//TRUE COPY//

¶34

P.A TO JUDGE

Devadas v. the Palakkad Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devadas v. the Palakkad Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Robins Joseph Vs the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives

Salim M. Vs Harikumar v.

K.v.Joseph and Sons Vs Assistant Commissioner

Ambalakandi Babeena Vs the Ferok Municipality

Poulose N.V. Vs the State of Kerala

Shahanas Vs the State of Kerala