Allowed

Hajara Ibrahim v. the Kozhikode Corporation

Kerala HC14 Dec 2021WP(C)/22155/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order rejecting a building permit application due to missing plans showing a proposed road under the DTP Scheme. It directed the respondents to reconsider the application without insisting on that requirement, noting a prior judgment reserved the area as a Commercial Zone under a new master plan.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 order quashed; Respondents directed to reconsider the application without insisting on showing the proposed road under the DTP Scheme and to issue the permit within two months.

Hajara Ibrahim Vs the Kozhikode Corporation — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 22155 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

HAJARA IBRAHIM

¶8

THEKKATH HOUSE, THIRUVANGOOR P.O., KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE-673 318

¶9

BY ADVS. AVM.SALAHUDIN A.D.DIVYA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 509

¶12

2 SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 509

¶13

3 THE REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER, CHAKORTTUKULAM, NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE ,PIN-673 011 BY ADVS. G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P). GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

SRI. B.S SYAMANTHAK, GOVT. PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 22155 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

T.R. RAVI, J.

¶19

-------------------------------------------- W. P. (C). No. 22155 of 2021

¶20

Dated this the 14^th day of December, 2021

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The prayer in this writ petition is to call for the records leading to Ext.P6 notice and for a direction to the respondents to issue building permit as applied for by the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.40092/2018, which was disposed of by this Court directing the Secretary of the Corporation to reconsider the petitioner's application taking note of the fact that a new master plan has been notified wherein the area in question has been reserved as a Commercial Zone. The Court specifically stated that if new plan has come into force, the same shall be adverted to while passing orders. Subsequent to the judgment of this Court, the Corporation passed Ext.P4 order directing the petitioner to produce certain documents for the purpose of consideration of the application. Petitioner submitted that the documents required are already submitted. However, on

¶23

WP(C) NO. 22155 OF 2021

¶24

¶25

06.05.2021, the 3^rd respondent issued Ext.P6 order wherein it is stated that the petitioner had not submitted any plans along with the application dated 08.03.2021 and that the plans which had been submitted earlier are defective for the reason that a proposed road under the DTP Scheme has not been shown in the plan. The contention of the petitioner is that such an objection cannot be taken in view of the earlier judgment of this Court wherein this Court has specifically stated that if a master plan has come into force, the same should be taken note of while passing orders on the application. The requirement under the DTP Scheme or a proposal under the DTP Scheme has no further relevance. I find considerable force in the said contention.

¶26

The reason stated in Ext.P6 is not sustainable and Ext.P6 is hence quashed. Respondents 1 & 2 are directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner without insisting on the requirement of showing the proposed road under the DTP Scheme in the plan. If the petitioner has complied with all other directions contained in Ext.P4 and the application for building permit is in

¶27

WP(C) NO. 22155 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

order, necessary orders shall be issued for granting the permit, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 22155 OF 2021

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22155/2021

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶37

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN ATTACHED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT

¶38

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2018 ISSUE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶39

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2019 IN WPC NO.40092/2018 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶40

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶41

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.02.2021 IN CON. CASE (C) NO.278 OF 2021 IN WPC NO.40092/2018

¶42

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶43

Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE NOTICE DATED 08.10.201 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN UNDER SECTION 67 OF THE KERALA TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT

Hajara Ibrahim v. the Kozhikode Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hajara Ibrahim v. the Kozhikode Corporation

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

Alex T. John @ Alexander Vs the Senior Geologist

Santhosh Kumar Vs P.v.Dinesh

Uma Vs M.M.Manaf

K.O.Abraham Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

P.N. Chandran Vs the Village Officer

Suresh.S., Vs State of Kerala