Writ petition challenging rejection of layout approval for an industrial building due to agricultural zone classification. Court held rigor of DTP scheme does not apply as land not in Paddy Land Data Bank. Directed replanning hearing.
Set aside Ext.P11 communication; direct District Town Planner to reconsider Ext.P10 application within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 23484 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
CHITHRAPPUZHA, IRRUMPANAM P.O, ERNAKULAM - 682 039
CHITHRAPPUZHA, IRRUMPANAM P.O, ERNAKULAM - 682 039
BY ADVS.
T.P.PRADEEP MINIKUMARY M.V. P.K.SATHEES KUMAR R.K.PRASANTH
RESPONDENTS:
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682 001
3 KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOCHI682011 SUBSTITUTED THRIPPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 301.
KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOCHI682011 ** SUBSTITUTED** " THE SECRETARY, THRIPPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 301." (R3 & R4 SUBSTITUTED AS PER ORDER DATED 20-07-2022 IN IA
2
W.P.(C) No.23484 of 2022.
NO.1/2022)
7 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
BY ADVS.
C.V.MANUVILSAN
B.S.SYAMANTHAK ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C) No.23484 of 2022.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2022 .
The petitioners, who are siblings and own property on the side of Thrippunithura-Refinery road, have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P11 communication issued by the District Town Planner, Ernakulam rejecting Ext. P10 application submitted by them for approval of lay out and usage of plot for an industrial building in the said property. Ext. P10 application has been rejected stating that the portion of their land abutting the aforesaid road falls in the Sanctioned DTP Scheme for Trippunithura - Karimugal Road and is included in the ‘existing agriculture uses (paddy field) retained’. The petitioners state that the scheme referred to in Ext.P11 has become redundant and obsolete and Ext.P11 has
4
W.P.(C) No.23484 of 2022.
been issued without taking into account Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent under the Kerala Land Utilization order and change of classification of land to dry land. The petitioners also rely on Ext. P14 information issued by the Trippunithura Municipality and state that the Municipality has not taken any decision to adopt or implement the aforesaid DTP scheme.
5
W.P.(C) No.23484 of 2022.
in W.P.(C).No.10236 of 2020 in respect of the same DTP scheme. In W.P. (C) No.29765/2019 (Parthasaradhy Vaishnavam Apartment Investor's Association v. State of Kerala and others), this Court considered the challenge made against the denial of occupancy on the ground that the property therein comes under the agricultural zone as per the structure plan notified under the general town planning scheme for Kochi and held that, since the land area was not included as paddy land in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, the rigour of DTP Scheme/Master plan with respect to zonal considerations of the area concerned cannot apply to the property of the petitioner and directed the local authority to consider the application for occupancy certificate dehors the finding rendered in zonal classification. Paragraph 6 of the judgment in W.P. (C).No.29765 of 2019 is extracted
6
W.P.(C) No.23484 of 2022.
below:-
fact remains that in this particular case, the property involved cannot be used as an agricultural one since, concededly, it has not been even included as a 'paddy land' in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of the Paddy Land Act. I am, therefore, of the view that the rigor of the DTP scheme/Master Plan with respect to the zonal considerations of the area concerned cannot apply
to the property of the petitioner. This is more so because, it is admitted by all sides that the Building
7
W.P.(C) No.23484 of 2022.
Permit for the construction in question had been issued by the Municipality consequent to the directions of this Court in WP (C) No.2054/2009, wherein these aspects were also considered.
8
W.P.(C) No.23484 of 2022.
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The petitioners shall produce the copy of the aforesaid judgments and the documents referred to herein, before the District Town Planner along with the certified copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of with the said direction.
Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE
Raj. 15.12.2022.
9
W.P.(C) No.23484 of 2022.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23484/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 |
TRUE COPY OF THEPETITIONERS LANDBUILDINGS. |
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THEAND SURROUNDING, |
|---|---|---|
Exhibit P2 |
TRUE COPY OF THERESPONDENT DATED |
ORDER OF THE 1ST09/08/2018 |
Exhibit P3 |
TRUE COPY OF THENO. 41524/18 DATE |
JUDGEMENT IN W.P. (C)D 27.6.2019 |
Exhibit P4 |
TRUE COPY OF THENO. 30372/2019 DA |
JUDGEMENT IN W.P. (C)TED 12.11.2019 |
Exhibit P5 |
TRUE COPY OF THERESPONDENT DATED |
ORDER OF THE 2ND17.07.2020 |
Exhibit P6 |
TRUE COPY OF THE12.04.2021 ISSUEDOFFICE, THRIRUVAN |
TAX RECEIPT DATEDFROM THE VILLAGEKULAM |
Exhibit P7 |
TRUE COPY OF THECERTIFICATE OBTAIDEPARTMENT OF FIRDATED 21.03.2022 |
NO OBJECTIONNED FROM THEE AND RESCUE SERVICE |
Exhibit P8 |
TRUE COPY OF THEOBTAINED FROM THEPOLLUTION CONTROL16.11.2026 |
CONSENT TO ESTABLISHKERALA STATEBOARD VALID UP TO |
Exhibit P9 |
TRUE COPY OF THEORDER DATED 04.05 |
FACTORY PLAN APPROVAL.2022 |
Exhibit P10 |
TRUE COPY OF THE |
APPLICATION FOR THE |
10
W.P.(C) No.23484 of 2022.
LAYOUT APPROVAL AND USAGE OFPLOT/CONCURRENCE DATED 09.05.2022SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT |
|
|---|---|
Exhibit P11 |
TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUEDBY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 01.07.2022TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT |
Exhibit P12 |
TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT T.P.SCHEME FORTHRIPPUNITHURA-KARIMUGAL ROAD |
Exhibit P13 |
TRUE COPY OF THE SITE APPROVAL &BUILDING PERMIT DATED 06.07.2021ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT |
Exhibit P14 |
TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINEDUNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED03/08/2022 |
Exhibit P15 |
TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THECOMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AT THE EASTERNAND WESTERN BOUNDARY OF PETITIONER'SLAND. |
Exhibit P16 |
TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THECOMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AT THE OPPOSITESIDE OF THE ROAD OF THE PETITIONER'SLAND. |
Exhibit P17 |
TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THEINDUSTRIAL UNIT NAMELY KUMMANCHERRYSTEELS. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rigor of the DTP scheme regarding zonal classification applies when the property is not included as paddy land in the Data Bank under the Paddy Land Act.
Whether the District Town Planner should reconsider the rejection of the application for layout approval taking into account the change of land classification to dry land and previous court observatio
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parthasaradhy Vaishnavam Apartment Investor's Association v. State of Kerala and othersApplied¶34
W.P. (C).No.29765 of 2019 (Parthasaradhy Vaishnavam Apartment Investor's Association v. State of Kerala and others)
Jose Varghese S/o Varghese
Jagan Varghese
The Revenue Divisional Officer
The Tahasildar
Kochi Municipal Corporation Represented by its Secretary
The District Town Planner
Murali Purushothaman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court