Dismissed

Nedumangad Municipality v. Dr.K.P.Ayyappan

Kerala HC10 Nov 2022WA/1528/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal, filed by Nedumangad Municipality challenging a single judge's order granting a building permit without insisting on Section 27A application, was dismissed as the order had already been acted upon by the municipality and construction completed, leaving nothing to consider.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed as the lower court's order was already acted upon, with building permit issued and construction completed.

Nedumangad Municipality Vs Dr.K.P.Ayyappan — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶7

WA NO. 1528 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.7.2022 IN WP(C) 25950/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶10

NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEDUMANGAD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695541

¶11

BY ADV THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1, 3 AND 4:

¶13

1 DR.K.P.AYYAPPAN, AGED 77 YEARS S/O PADMANABHAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, VENAD HOSPITAL, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695541

¶14

2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

¶15

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043

¶16

4 VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 541

¶17

SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN – R1 SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR.G.P. - R2 TO R4

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA NO. 1528 OF 2022

:: 2 ::

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10^th day of November 2022

¶23

S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

¶24

This writ appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 1.7.2022 in W.P.(C)No.25950/2021. Appellant is the second respondent in the writ petition.

¶25

Petitioner/the first respondent herein (Dr.K.P.Ayyappan) had submitted a fresh application for issuance of a building permit for construction of 1^st floor of commercial building for which, earlier permission was granted on 23.11.2002, which had lapsed on 21.11.2011.

¶26

The same was rejected as per Ext.P11 communication as the land proposed was wet land as per the revenue records.

¶27

Assailing Ext.P11 writ petition was filed seeking for a direction to Nedumangad Municipality - second respondent in the writ petition, to issue building permit for construction of first floor of building of the petitioner without insisting for an application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and WetLand Act, 2008 without any further delay.

¶28

WA NO. 1528 OF 2022

¶29

:: 3 ::

¶30

Writ court, after considering the rival submissions,

¶31

allowed the writ petition holding thus:

¶32

“4. Admittedly the petitioner submitted an application for building permit much prior to the date on which the Act 2008 came into force. Ext.P1 is the initial building permit which is dated 23.11.2002. Ext.P3 is the application for fresh building permit submitted by the petitioner. In Cheranelloor Grama Panchayat v. Jose Thattil [2020 (5) KHC 669], this Court observed that the land described as nilam in BTR and not included in the data bank and the building permit issued prior to 30.12.2017, Section 27A of the Act 2008 which came into force on 30.12.2017 is not applicable to building permits granted prior to the said date. In the light of the same, prayers in the writ petition are to be allowed.

¶33

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

¶34

Exts.P6, P7, P9 and P11 are set aside.

¶35

The 2^nd respondent is directed to issue building permit for the construction of the first floor of the building of the petitioner without insisting for an application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

¶36

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the writ court, second respondent – Nedumangad Municipality has preferred this writ appeal contending inter alia that the statutory as well as constitutional rights vested in the

¶37

WA NO. 1528 OF 2022

¶38

:: 4 ::

¶39

appellant Municipality would be infringed if the impugned judgment is allowed to sustain. Hence interference of his court is sought for.

¶40

On 4^th November 2022, when the matter came up for

¶41

hearing, we passed the following order:

¶42

“This writ appeal is filed by the Nedumangad Municipality/second respondent in the writ petition being aggrieved by the judgment dated 1.7.2022 in W.P.(C)No.25950 of 2021 by which, the learned Single Judge allowed the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.

¶43

Writ petition was filed seeking for a direction to the second respondent to issue building permit for construction of first floor of building of the petitioner without insisting for an application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and WetLand Act, 2008 without any further delay.

¶44

Mr.Thomas Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on a communication dated 3.11.2022 issued by the appellant/Nedumangad Municipality to the writ petitioner/Dr.K.P.Ayyappan submitted that building application submitted by the first respondent/writ petitioner in 2002 was granted on 23.11.2002 for the construction of an area of basement floor – 778.30Sqm., ground floor – 768.30 Sqm, first floor – 788.08 Sqm. However, in the building application for the proposed extension, area of the ground floor has been reduced to 750.97Sqm. He further submitted that the new building application submitted by the first respondent/writ petitioner for the extension of first floor is not the same and the

¶45

WA NO. 1528 OF 2022

¶46

:: 5 ::

¶47

proposed extension plan is less in area than the approved plan in the old permit dated 23.11.2002.

¶48

Mr.G.Ranju Mohan, learned counsel for the first respondent seeks time to get instructions in the matter.

¶49

Post on 10.11.2022.”

¶50

On this day, on instructions, it is submitted by Sri.Ranju Mohan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Dr.K.P.Ayyapppan that acting on the directions issued by this court, Secretary, Nedumangad Municipality has issued building permit. It is also submitted that the construction of the first floor of the building is over.

¶51

Above submission of Sri.Ranju Mohan, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent is placed on record.

¶52

In the light of the above, since the judgment of this court has already been acted upon, we are of the view that nothing further survives for consideration in this writ appeal.

¶53

Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.

¶54

SD/-

¶55

S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶56

SD/-

¶57

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶58

jes

Nedumangad Municipality v. Dr.K.P.Ayyappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nedumangad Municipality v. Dr.K.P.Ayyappan

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

Nibu Michael Vs Lovely Santy

The Registering Authority, Regional Transport Office, Kottarakkara Vs Saifudeen

Blessen Baby Vs Union of India

P.Subhash Chandran Vs the Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited

The Competent Authority Vs M.C.Musthafa

School of Communication and Management Studies, Vs S.Abhilash