The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging a building permit granted to Reliance Jio for a telecom tower. The Court held that subsequent registration of the lease deed and the production of location plans sufficed to identify the property boundaries, finding no violation of rules requiring registered leases or clear demarcation.
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.
W.P.(C)No.8439-2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 8439 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 SOMAN AGED 62 YEARS S/O CHELLAPPAN, PADINJATTATHIL VEEDU, KOLAYARA, THOTTAVARAM, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695101.
2 SUKESH BABU S/O KUNJAN, MUBUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KOLAYARA, THOTTAVARAM, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695101. BY ADVS. SRI M.R.RAJESH SRI JAVAHAR T.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPALITY OFFICE, ATTINGAL-695101. 2 RELIANCE JIO INFOCOM LTD ARTECH MEENAKSHI PLAZA, 2ND FLOOR, OPPOSITE TO GOVERNMENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN HOSPITAL, THYCAUD, THYCAUD P O, THIURVANTHAPURAM-695014, HAVING CONTACT ADDRESS AT 32, 2552-C, P K TOWER, 1ST FLOOR, MAMANGALAM, NEAR YATHRI NIVAS, PALARIVATTOM P O, ERNAKULAM-682017, INDIA, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR) SRI AKHIL SURESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 5.4.2022, THE COURT ON 15.11.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.8439-2022
2
T.R. RAVI, J.
W.P.(C)No.8439 of 2022
Dated this the 15 th day of November, 2022
JUDGMENT
The first respondent issued Ext.P1 building permit dated 20.2.2017 in favour of the second respondent for the construction of a mobile telecommunication tower. The grant of the permit was challenged by the petitioner in Appeal No.545 of 2017 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). Ext. P2 is the copy of the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by Ext.P8 order dated 31.12.2021. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the petitioners have approached this court.
W.P.(C)No.8439-2022
3
plot which has been leased out and hence there is a violation of the Kerala Municipalities Building Rules 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), where a plot has been defined as a plot with definite boundaries. It is further stated that the very fact that the lease deed was later registered on 15.5.2017 shows that at the time of issuance of the building permit on 20.2.2017 there was no registered lease. Reliance is placed on the decision in K.B.Saha & Sons Private Limited vs. Development Consultant Limited
[2008 KHC 4901] . It is submitted that if something has to be done in a particular manner as per the rule, it should be done only in that manner or not at all.
W.P.(C)No.8439-2022
4
boundaries of the property. The counsel refers to the location plan which has been produced in the writ petition in support of the contention. It is also submitted that the contention that the person who has signed the lease deed on behalf of the 2nd respondent is not authorised is also not correct. Ext.R2(d) produced along with the counter affidavit of the second respondent clearly shows that Sri Shabu is an authorised signatory of the second respondent for Kerala and Lakshadweep.
W.P.(C)No.8439-2022
5
respondent is not authorised is also without any basis having regard to Ext.R2(d) produced by the 2nd respondent which clearly shows that the signatory is an authorised signatory. The next contention that the plot is not clearly identified is also not sustainable, since the lease deed and the location sketch are sufficient to identify the property. This is all the more so, since the parties have entered into a fresh lease deed as evident from Ext.R2(b) on 15.5.2017 where the schedule clearly shows that the extent is 1.44 Ares out of 22.26 Ares. The document also shows the boundaries of the property. The requirement of the rule does not warrant the application of the dictum laid down in K.B.Saha (supra) which states about the effect of non-registration of a document and its admissibility in evidence. No grounds are made out for interference with the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI JUDGE
dsn
W.P.(C)No.8439-2022
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| EXT.P1 | A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.PW2- BA(7443)/2017 DATED 20.02.2017 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2 | A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL NO.545/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, TRHIRUVANANTHAPURAM. |
| EXT.P3 | A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE TOWER ON WHICH EXT.P1 PERMIT WAS ISSUED. |
| EXT.P4 | A TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATD 01.12.2016 EXECUTED BY MR.DEEPAK AND HIS WIFE SOUMYA IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P5 | A TRUE COPY OF THE STRUCTURAL STABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 17.12.2016 ALONG WITH THE DATA SHEET, PRODUCED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE EXT.P3 APPLICATION. |
| EXT.P6 | A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 11.10.2021 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO EXT.P2 APPEAL |
| EXT.P7 | A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.04.2014. |
| EXT.P8 | A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.11.2021 IN APPEAL NO.545/2007 OF THE TRIBUNAL OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. |
| EXT.P9 | A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.6.2017 IN IA NO 1019/2017 IN APPEAL NO 549/2017 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS |
| EXT.R2(A) | PHOTOGRAPH OF COMPLETED STRUCTURE OF THE TOWER DATED 23-03-2022. |
| EXT.R2(B) | TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED LEASE DEED DATED 15-05- 2017. |
| EXT.R2(C) | TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETE BOARD RESOLUTION DATED 17-03-2014. |
| EXT.R2(D) | TRUE COPY OF VALID CERTIFICATE OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DATED JAN 2016 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal against the grant of a building permit for a telecom tower.
Whether the non-registration of the lease deed at the time of permit issuance and lack of definite plot boundaries warrant quashing the permit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.B.Saha & Sons Private Limited vs. Development Consultant Limited [2008 KHC 4901]Distinguished¶20
Soman
Sukesh Babu
Attingal Municipality
Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd
T.R. Ravi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
