Disposed

Parappurathkotakkal Muhammed Shameem v. Kannur Municipal Corporation

Kerala HC4 Mar 2022WP(C)/5421/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a building permit rejection was disposed of with liberty to invoke Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016, to claim acquisition of petitioner's land for road widening.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of leaving open liberty to invoke Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 for acquisition.

Parappurathkotakkal Muhammed Shameem Vs Kannur… — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 5421 OF 2018

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 5421 OF 2018

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

PARAPPURATH KOTAKKAL MUHAMMED SHAMEEM
S/O. VALIYAKATH SHADULI HAJI, AGED 45, SAHIDA
COTTAGE,GOKHALE ROAD, KANNUR REPRESENTED BY ITS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDERP.K. HAMEED, S/O. AMOO, AGED
72 YEARSSAHIDA COTTAGE, GOKHALE ROAD, KANNUR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.HARISH R. MENON
SRI.A.G.PRASANTH
SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,KANNUR, PIN- 670 001

¶11

2 ASSISTANT ENGINEER KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN670001

¶12

3STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LOCAL
SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001
BY ADVS.
SMT.S.AMBILY
SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SR.
SRI.MANU SRINATH
SMT.NAMITHA NAMBIAR
SRI.SAJI THOMAS
R1 & R2 BY SMT.M.MEENA JOHN, SC

¶13

WP(C) NO. 5421 OF 2018

¶14

-2-

¶15

R3 BY SRI. RIYAL DEVASSY, GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 5421 OF 2018

¶18

-3-

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following

¶21

reliefs:-

¶22

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari and such other writ or direction calling upon the entire records leading up to Exhibit P3 and P4 and quash the same after declaring the same as illegal and jurisdiction.

¶23

ii) Declare that in view of Exhibit P10 Government Order, the respondent 1 and 2 canot reject grant of building permit to the petitioner as the Government had categorically directed that residential, commercial and industrial construction is permissible in the land within the Kannur Municipality wherein the draft master plan is sought to be implemented.

¶24

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction to 1^st and 2^nd respondent to implement the direction as per the Exhibit P1 of the Tribunal for Local Self Government, Thiruvananthapuram and grant building permit to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time limit to be prescribed by this Honourable Court.

¶25

And

¶26

iv) And to grant such other order or direction which this

¶27

WP(C) NO. 5421 OF 2018

¶28

-4-

¶29

Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.”

¶30

Apparently, the challenge is against Ext.P4 order passed by the Municipality, rejecting the application for building permit, stating that in accordance with the Master Plan, the property is situated within the commercial + residential mixed zone and the permit can be granted only for that purpose. It is also stated thereunder that there is a proposal for widening of the existing road to 16 meters and the property of the petitioner may have to be utilized for that purpose. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of Ext.P4, this writ petition is filed.

¶31

However, today when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if the writ petition is disposed of, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to invoke Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 (hereinafter ‘the Act, 2016’).

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. K.P.Shyamkumar and the learned counsel appearing for the Kannur Municipal Corporation Smt. Meena John, and perused the pleadings and

¶33

WP(C) NO. 5421 OF 2018

¶34

-5-

¶35

the materials on record.

¶36

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and from Ext.P4, I find that the property of the petitioner is required for widening of the road. Petitioner is entitled as of right to issue a notice under Section 67 of the Act, 2016, requesting the Municipality to proceed for acquisition, if any acquisition is designated against the property, by the Municipal Corporation.

¶37

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to invoke Section 67 of the Act, 2016, and in accordance with law. If the petitioner makes any such application, the Municipal Corporation will have to take a decision in accordance with the statutory stipulations contained under Section 67 of the Act, 2016.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

SHAJI P.CHALY
JUDGE

¶41

uu 05.03.2022

¶42

WP(C) NO. 5421 OF 2018

¶43

-6-

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5421/2018

¶45

`PETITION`	`ER EXHIB`	`ITS`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `PASSED BY THE TRIBUNA` `GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIO`	`ORDER DATED 28.4.2016` `L FOR LOCAL SELF` `NS`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.1232/2017 FILED BY` `BEFORE THE LOCAL SELF` `INSTITUTIONS TRIBUNAL`	`REVIEW PETITION` `THE RESPONDENT` `GOVERNMENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `SUBMITTED BY THE RESP` `943/2017 IN APPEAL NO` `LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT`	`REPORT AND SKETCH` `ONDENTS IN IA NO` `271/2015 BEFORE THE` `TRIBUNAL`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT CORPORATIO`	`NOTICE ISSUED BY THE` `N ON 4.8.2017`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `DISMISSING THE REVIEW` `CONDONATION PETITION` `RESPONDENT`	`ORDER DATED 28.9.2017` `PETITION AND DELAY` `FILED BY THE`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `DISMISSING THE REVIEW` `CONDONATION PETITION` `RESPONDENT`	`ORDER DATED 28.9.2017` `PETITION AND DELAY` `FILED BY THE`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDE` `IA NO 943/2017 IN APP` `THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCA` `INSTITUTIONS`	`R DATED 28.9.2017 IN` `EAL NO 271/2015 OF` `L SELF GOVERNMENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE EXTR` `GAZETTE DATED 19.2.20`	`ACT OF THE KERALA` `13`
`EXHIBIT`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) 3` `12.2.2016`	`3/16/LSGD DATED`
`EXHIBIT`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) 3` `19.2.2016.`	`8/16/LSGD DATED`

Parappurathkotakkal Muhammed Shameem v. Kannur Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parappurathkotakkal Muhammed Shameem v. Kannur Municipal 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

Mathew Vs the State of Kerala

Azeez T.. Vs Kottackal Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited NO.1378

N. K . Jumaila, Vs A.P.M. Muhammed Hanish

Sushija Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala

E.X.Titus Vs Corporation of Kochi

R.Rengaraja Iyengar Vs the Secretary, Trivandrum Corporation