Allowed

Ravindrakumar v. Vs 1. the Palakkad Municipality

Kerala HC23 Mar 2022WP(C)/6334/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court held that petitioner's building permit application requires reconsideration as property abuts a road over 15m wide. Rejected order (Ext.P8) set aside; direction to reconsider application within three weeks noting road width and zone rules.

What did the court decide?

Set aside rejection order (Ext.P8); directed 2nd respondent to reconsider application and pass orders within three weeks noting road width of over 15m.

Ravindrakumar v Vs 1. the Palakkad Municipality — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO.6334 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER :-

¶7

RAVINDRAKUMAR V, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.VISWANATHAN K., RAVIKIRAN HOUSE, POOCHIRA, PUTHUPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 731, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ARUNKUMAR R, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. RAMANATHAN K, RESIDING AT VIPANJIKA, RAILWAY COLONY, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 678 731

¶8

BY ADVS. JACOB SEBASTIAN K.V.WINSTON ANU JACOB

¶9

RESPONDENTS :-

¶10

1 THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678 001

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678 001

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICER PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678 001

¶13

4 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695 001

¶14

BY ADV SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SC, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY BY SMT.VINITHA B, SR.GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO.6334 OF 2022

¶17

-: 2 :-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2022

¶20

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

¶21

“I. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to issue a building permit to the petitioner as applied for.

¶22

II. Call for the approved Master Plan of the first respondent referred to in Exhibit P8 and quash it in so far as it relates to the plot of the petitioner by the issue of a writ of certiorari.

¶23

III. Call for the records leading to issue of Exhibit P8 by the second respondent and quash it of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.”

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶25

learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality as well as the learned Government Pleader.

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

that the petitioner is the owner of an extent of 8.43 Ares of land with a residential building within the jurisdiction of the 1^st respondent Municipality. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted an application for building permit for a commercial building which has been rejected by Ext.P8 communication on the ground that the property of the petitioner falls within the “special category residential zone” under the Master Plan. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's property

¶28

WP(C) NO.6334 OF 2022

¶29

-: 3 :-

¶30

abuts the main road and that even if the property is in a residential zone, it would be permissible for construction of residential and commercial buildings in such a property going by Ext.P9 Government Order.

¶31

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality submits that it was on the basis of the understanding that the property is in the special category residential zone and that commercial buildings cannot be constructed therein that Ext.P8 order of rejection had been issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that the Municipality had addressed the Town Planner who had, by communication dated 14.3.2022, clarified that the property is included in the residential zone. It is submitted that if the provisions of Ext.P9 are taken into account, the application of the petitioner would be liable to be considered in the light of the fact that the petitioner's property abuts the main road, which has a width of 15 metres or more.

¶32

The learned Government Pleader has also placed written instructions from the District Town Planner on record, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner's property abuts the Kalmandapam road which has an existing width of 15 metres available from IMA Junction to the applicant's property and that going by Ext.P9, land to a depth of 50 metres in residential zone and 100 metres in

¶33

WP(C) NO.6334 OF 2022

¶34

-: 4 :-

¶35

commercial, public, semi public and industrial zones along the sides of roads having a width of 15 metres or more can be used for commercial constructions as well.

¶36

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit requires a reconsideration. Ext.P8 is, therefore, set aside. There will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to take up the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit and to consider and pass orders on the same, taking note of the fact that the petitioner's property is abutting a road having a width of more than 15 metres and to pass orders on the same, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶40

Jvt/28.3.2022

¶41

WP(C) NO.6334 OF 2022

¶42

-: 5 :-

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6334/2022

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

Exhibit-P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 06.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER; PALAKKAD 3 VILLAGE.
Exhibit-P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 10.12.2021 CONCERNING BUILDING NUMBER 10/26.
Exhibit-P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 10.12.2021 CONCERNING BUILDING NUMBER 11/26.
Exhibit-P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE RELEVANT DETAILS FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY .
Exhibit-P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING AGE CERTIFICATE DATED 10.12.2021 CONCERNING BUILDING NUMBER 10/26.
Exhibit-P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING AGE CERTIFICATE DATED 10.12.2021 CONCERNING BUILDING NUMBER 11/26.
Exhibit-P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 29.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND REMAINS ACT, 2010, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit-P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 30.12.2021 .
Exhibit-P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS.) NO.210/09/LSGD DATED 11.11.2009.
Exhibit-P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PLOT ALONG WITH THE EXISTING BUILDINGS.
Exhibit-P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.06.2020 IN W.P. (C).NO.11533 OF 2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
Exhibit-P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.10.2020 IN W.P.(C).NO.17881/2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

Ravindrakumar v. Vs 1. the Palakkad Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindrakumar v. Vs 1. the Palakkad Municipality

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

M/S. Tmt Granites Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Salavudhin K.K. Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Prakash Kumar, Vs the State Police Chief

Shaju C Chacko, Vs the District Collector

Roshini Varghese, Vs the District Collector

Jacob Augustine Vs the Senior Geologist