Disposed

Sajini Jayaprakash v. Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Kerala HC4 Aug 2021WP(C)/3249/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of Occupancy Certificate for a building permit-issued structure. Court held certificate is invalid as proposed road widening was not in consideration at permit issuance. Allowed disposal to cure defects or regularise.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to cure defects or prosecute application for regularisation; Occupancy Certificate not to be rejected on proposed road widening ground.

Sajini Jayaprakash Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3249 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SAJINI JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.M.S.JAYAPRAKASH, RESIDING AT SIVADA, T.C. 31/602, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶11

2 THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶12

3 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶13

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

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.3249/2021

: 2 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 4^th day of August, 2021

¶20

The petitioner, who is the owner of a parcel of land abutting Pettah-Chakka Road in the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, is before this Court seeking to set aside Exts.P3 to P5 and to direct the respondents to issue Occupancy Certificate to the petitioner for the building constructed by her on the basis of Ext.P2 Building Permit.

¶21

The petitioner proposed to construct a building and applied for a Building Permit. The Building Permit was issued to the petitioner for construction of a residential-cumcommercial building having total area of 571.60 square metres. The building permit was issued on 16.05.2018. After completion of the building, when the petitioner approached the 1^st respondent-Corporation for Occupancy Certificate, the Town Planning Officer of the 1^st respondent has issued

¶22

WP(C) No.3249/2021

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

Ext.P3 notice dated 09.01.2020 stating that taking into account the proposed road widening, the building of the petitioner would violate Rule 24(5) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P2 Building Permit was issued to the petitioner taking into consideration the existing width of the road and the Corporation did not reject the application of the petitioner for building permit on the basis of proposed widening of the existing road and the petitioner was permitted to construct the building in accordance with the permit. Therefore, now the 1^st respondent cannot turn around and state that the building is constructed in violation of the proposed road widening.

¶26

The learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent appeared in the writ petition and contested the case filing a statement dated 16.03.2021. The 1^st respondent stated that when a local inspection was conducted for the purpose of issuance of Occupancy Certificate, it was found that the building was constructed in violation of the approved

¶27

WP(C) No.3249/2021

¶28

: 4 :

¶29

plan and permit. The construction is in violation of various provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. It was under such circumstances that a provisional order under Section 406(1) and (2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 was issued to the petitioner. The construction, which violates the permit conditions, is unauthorised. The petitioner has submitted an application for regularisation subsequently. This would show that even the petitioner is admitting violations of the conditions of permit.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶31

If the petitioner has constructed the building in accordance with Ext.P2 Building Permit, then the 1^st respondent will not be justified in rejecting the application for Occupancy Certificate on the ground that there is a proposed road widening and the construction of the building would violate the building rules once the road widening occurs. To that extent, Ext.P3 cannot stand the scrutiny of law.

¶32

WP(C) No.3249/2021

¶33

: 5 :

¶34

If the respondents have a case that the constructed building violates various conditions in the building permit, it is then for the petitioner to cure the defect or seek regularisation of the building.

¶35

In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to cure the defect or prosecute his application for regularisation of the construction. However, Occupancy Certificate/regularisation of the building shall not

¶36

be rejected on the ground that in view of the proposed road widening, the constructed building violates building rules.

¶37

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/04.08.2021

WP(C) No.3249/2021

: 6 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3249/2021

¶42

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2	TRUE 03.1 TRUE PERM 16.0	COPY 2.2020 COPY IT 5.2018	OF TH . OF THE NO.E11/ .	E TAX RECEIPT BUILDING PERMI BA/133643/17	DATED T VIDE DATED
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE PETI 09.0	COPY TIONER 1.2020	OF THE BY THE .	NOTICE ISSUED 2ND RESPONDEN	TO THE T DATED
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE 2ND	COPY RESPON	OF THE DENT DAT	NOTICE ISSUED ED 18.08.2020.	BY THE
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE 2ND	COPY RESPON	OF THE DENT DAT	NOTICE ISSUED ED 14.10.2020.	BY THE

¶44

Sajini Jayaprakash v. Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajini Jayaprakash v. Thiruvananthapuram 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

Pandampadathil Granites Private Limited Vs the State of Kerala

Alphonsa Francis Vs the Local Level Monitaring Committee

Juby Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev R Vs Dr. Fathahudheen, Chairman

Lekha Vs the District Collector

Ziyad Muthaleef Vs the State of Kerala