Disposed

M.v.Balakrishnan v. Kanhangad Muncipality

Kerala HC5 Aug 2022WP(C)/4096/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition regarding the cancellation of a building permit and subsequent denial of regularisation. It directed the Municipality to finalise the pending regularisation proceedings within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Secretary of the Municipality to consider the application for regularisation within two months from receipt of judgment copies; supporting documents to be submitted in two weeks.

M.v.Balakrishnan Vs Kanhangad Muncipality — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4096 OF 2014

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.V.BALAKRISHNAN AGED 40 YEARS S/O.KUNHAMBU, KIZHAKKUMKARA, MUCHILOT,AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICTREPRESENTED BY WIFE AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.REMA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SMT.ANU ASHOK SRI.HARISH R. MENON

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 KANHANGAD MUNCIPALITY KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 692 002.

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY KANHANGAD MUNICIPALITY, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 692 002. BY ADV SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2022, THE

¶12

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C) No.4096 of 2014

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 5^th day of August, 2022

¶17

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶18

(i) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P6 and quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶19

(ii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to complete the construction of the building in his property as per Exhibit P2 building permit granted by the 1^st respondent.

¶20

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to allow the petitioner to complete the construction of the residential building in his property in accordance with Exhibit P2 building permit.

¶21

The subject issue relates to cancellation of building permit issued to the petitioner by the Secretary of the Kanhangad Municipality – the 2^nd respondent. The contention advanced is that on the basis of the building permit granted, petitioner has started construction and it was on the half way that the Secretary has passed an order withdrawing the building permit granted to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶22

Anyhow, when the writ petition was admitted to the files of this Court, an interim order staying all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P6 impugned order was granted for a period of three weeks on 11.2.2014, which was periodically

¶23

W.P.(C) No.4096 of 2014

¶24

¶25

extended, and extended until further orders on 10.7.2014.

¶26

When the matter was taken up on 29.7.2022, counsel for petitioner and the respondents were directed to ascertain as to whether the construction of the building is complete pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court.

¶27

Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel appearing on either side submitted that construction is complete. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that an application for regularisation of the construction is pending consideration before the Secretary of the Municipality and the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to finalise the said proceedings within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶28

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri.K.T.Shyam Kumar and learned counsel for respondents Sri.T.K.Vipindas, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the Secretary of the Municipality to consider the application for regularisation submitted by the petitioner, at the earliest, and at any rate, within two months from the the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and if the petitioner is producing any documents supporting the application pending consideration before the Secretary of the Municipality, it shall be done within two weeks from today.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶31

W.P.(C) No.4096 of 2014

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶35

EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1296/2005 OF HOSDURG SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE.

¶36

EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 8.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 25.10.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P-7: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED BY THE PETITIONER IN TERMS WITH EXHIBIT P2 PERMIT.

M.v.Balakrishnan v. Kanhangad Muncipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.v.Balakrishnan v. Kanhangad Muncipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saralakumari P.V Vs the President,Kottayam Co-Operative

P.J. Ulahanan Vs Siby J. Joseph

T P Rajan Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

K.Balakrishnan Nair Vs P.K.Vinodkumar

N.S.Mani Vs Sulthan Bathery Municipality

Ramla Vs the Athavanand Grama Panchayath