Disposed

Thiruvananthapuram Corporation v. Lijo Abraham

Kerala HC9 Dec 2021WP(C)/16333/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a building permit condition. The court directed the petitioner Corporation to reconsider the 1st respondent's application, ignoring the fourth objection, and grant a permit up to 300 Sq.Mtrs as per the Scheme.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to consider Ext.P1 application, ignore fourth objection in Ext.P2, and pass orders within six weeks adhering to the Scheme allowing up to 300 Sq.Mtrs.

Thiruvananthapuram Corporation Vs Lijo Abraham — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶5

1943

¶6

WP(C) NO. 16333 OF 2020

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, PALAYAM, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O. M.G. ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.

¶9

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

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 LIJO ABRAHAM S/O.K.A. ABRAHAM T.C. 3/917 (2), KALOOR HOUSE, ARAPPURA LANE, MUTTADA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 025. 2 ANN MARY ALEX, W/O. LIJO ABRAHAM T.C. 3/917 (2), KALOOR HOUSE, ARAPPURA LANE, MUTTADA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 025. ADDRESS FOR COMMUNICATION, T.C. 15/1526(1) M.P. APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 015. 3 CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. BY ADVS. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (KANNAMPUZHA)

¶12

SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK, GP.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C) No.16333 of 2020

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The respondents 1 and 2 had applied for a building permit for construction of a building having plinth area of 186.26 Sq.Mtrs. The application was filed on 26.07.2015. The properties fall within the limits of the Revised Master Plan (RMP). The application for building permit was referred to the Chief Town Planner for his concurrence. The Chief Town Planner imposed a condition that the building could not exceed 50.Sq.Mtrs of plinth area. The said condition was challenged by respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by Ext.P4, allowed the appeal and found that such a condition should not have been imposed. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is based on the entries in the title deed of the respondents 1 and 2. The Corporation has in the writ petition challenged Ext.P4 stating that the above reasoning is not correct and that they are willing to grant a building permit provided the Chief Town Planner revises his order and permits construction of a building with 186.26 Sq.Mtrs.

¶18

I have heard the Senior counsel Sri. N.Nandakumara Menon as instructed by Sri. P.K. Manoj Kumar on behalf of the

¶19

W.P.(C) No.16333 of 2020

¶20

¶21

petitioner, Sri. M.A. Abdul Hakim on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.B.S.Syamanthak the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 3^rd respondent.

¶22

It is pointed out that as per clause 11.2 of the Scheme, permission can be granted for single family residential building of floor area upto 300 Sqr.Meteres. As such, a restriction of 50 Sqr.Mtrs could not have been imposed since the permitted limit is 300 Sq.Mtrs and the application was only for a building of 186.26 Sq.Mtrs which is far below the permitted limit. The Government Pleader also submits that even under the interim development order, the upper limit for construction is 300 Sq.Mtrs. Whether it is the interim development order or the master plan which applies in the case, the upper limit is 300 Sq.Mtrs and there could not have been a restriction that the building should be within 50 Sq.Mtrs. The finding of the Tribunal that such a restriction should not have been imposed cannot be found fault with, though for different reasons.

¶23

The writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to consider Ext.P1 application for building permit submitted by the 1^st respondent, ignoring the fourth objection stated in Ext.P2 and

¶24

W.P.(C) No.16333 of 2020

¶25

¶26

bearing in mind the provisions of the Scheme which permits construction of single residential buildings upto 300 Sq.Mtrs. Petitioner shall pass orders, if the application is otherwise in order, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

T.R. RAVI JUDGE

rpk

W.P.(C) No.16333 of 2020

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16333/2020

¶33

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED 26.7.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT 7 TO BEFORE THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P2 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D3/10192/2015/KDIS. DATED 25.2.2016 PASSED BY THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, TRIVANDRUM CORPORATION TYPED COPY. EXHIBIT P3 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT NO. UEI/BA-274/15 DATED 9.5.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER CORPORATION, BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, TVM. IN APPEAL NO. 286/16. EXHIBIT P4 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.8.2019 IN APPEAL NO. 286/2016 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, TVM.

Thiruvananthapuram Corporation v. Lijo Abraham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thiruvananthapuram Corporation v. Lijo Abraham

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

Hidayath Charitable Trust, Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Mathew @ Kunju Vs Renju

Simi Vs Benoy

Faisal, Vs v.R.Premkumar IAS

Fathima Navaz Vs Thrikkakara Municipality

Mattammel Baby Vs State of Kerala