Quashed

Shamna v. Union of India

Kerala HC20 Dec 2021WP(C)/5225/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court quashed the rejection letter (Ex.P4) issued by the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority for granting clearance to the petitioner's property. The court directed the respondent to reconsider the issue after the municipality confirmed the property lies on the landward side of an existing road.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Ext.P4. Directed the 3rd respondent to reconsider the issue after receiving the report from the Municipality, with orders to be passed within two months.

Shamna Vs Union of India — Kerala HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5225 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHAMNA AGED 33 YEARS D/O.NEDHIRA, JAS VILLA, THEKKUMBHAGOM, PARAVUR, KOLLAM, PIN-691 319.

¶8

BY ADVS. SHERRY J. THOMAS SHRI.JOSEPH C.V.(CHELAKKATT) SRI.RENISH RAVEENDRAN SRI.JOEMON ANTONY SHRI.LIGISH XAVIER SMT.THAMANA BAI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT (MOEF), INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 011 2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3 THE KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, SASTRA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶11

4 THE PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, PARAVUR P.O., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-691 301.

¶12

BY ADVS. K.R.RAJKUMAR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.PRAKASH, SC, KCZMA SHRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR, SC, PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY M.RAJENDRAN NAIR SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

¶13

SRI. B.S SYAMANTHAK, GP.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 5225 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

T.R.RAVI, J.

¶18

WP(C) NO. 5225 OF 2020

¶19

 Dated this the 20thday of December , 2021

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P4 and
direct the 3rd respondent to re-examine Ext.P4 on the basis of
Exts.P3 and P5 and to issue clearance to the petitioner since
the property of the petitioner is in CRZ II category and it is on
the landward side of the approved existing road. In Ext.P4,
while declining clearance, the 3rd respondent has stated that
the site does not lie on the landward side of existing
authorized road/buildings. The Municipality was directed to
file an affidavit on the above aspect. An affidavit has been filed
by the 4th respondent attaching a report dated 06.11.2021
prepared by the Municipal Engineer. It is stated in the affidavit
and in the report that the property in question is about 35
meters from the backwaters and that there is a road between
the backwater and the site in question which is shown in the
asset register as Kaliyilmukku-Nerukadavuu road of 200 meter
length and 5 meter width with 3 meter tar surface. It is further
stated that the property is on the landward side of the road.

¶22

WP(C) NO. 5225 OF 2020

¶23

¶24

 In the above circumstances, the reason stated in Ext.P4
does not appear to be correct. Ext.P4 is hence quashed. The
3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the issue. For the
purpose of reconsideration, the 4th respondent shall forward
the application in proper format wherein it shall be stated
about the existence of the road. Necessary orders shall be
passed within two months after getting the report from the
Municipality.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

T.R.RAVI

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

sn

¶29

WP(C) NO. 5225 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5225/2020

¶32

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶33

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P1 A THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DATED 17.05.2019. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING DATED 09.03.2019 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING RIVER AND THE ROAD DATED 09.03.2019. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08.02.2018. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 27.03.2019.

¶34

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶35

Exhibit R4-1	TRUE CLERK 2021.	COPY OF MEMO ISSUED TO THE SECTION , PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY DATED 29-10-
Exhibit R4 2	TRUE DATED	COPY OF REPORT OF MUNICIPAL ENGINEER 06-11-2021.
Exhibit R4 3	TRUE DATED	COPY OF REPORT OF MUNICIPAL ENGINEER 06.12.2021
Exhibit R4 4	TRUE MINIC	COPY OF THE ASSET REGISTER OF THE IPALITY

¶36

// TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Shamna v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamna v. Union of India

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

M.Damodaran Master Vs the Mattannur Municipality

Rmd Realtors Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

Radha Vs Hamza K.K.

M. Sundaresh Kumar Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

M.G. Sidharthan Vs the Secretary

The South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs the Kochi Municipal Corporation