Partly allowed

Mylaady Ware Housing Private Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2023WP(C)/29628/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a petition challenging a Government Order directing cancellation of building permits and regularisation of construction. It held that subsequent amendment of zoning to 'mixed use' validated the construction, rendering the cancellation order unwarranted and setting it aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Government Order directing cancellation of permits and regularisation was set aside in WP(C) 29628/2018. WP(C) 22889/2018 was dismissed.

Mylaady Ware Housing Private Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO.29628 OF 2018

¶6

PETITIONER :-

¶7

M/s.MYLAADY WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LTD MYLAADY HOUSE, 4-C, SKYLINE PRIMROSE, LFC CROSS ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR BABITH BABY, MYLAADY HOUSE, 4-A, SKYLINE PRIMROSE, LFC CROSS ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI.

¶8

BY ADVS. GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) A.R. DILEEP P.J. JOE PAUL RAJAN G. GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS :-

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RB) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RB) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3 CORPORATION OF COCHIN REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, KOCHI – 682 011.

¶13

4 THE SECRETARY CORPORATION OF COCHIN, KOCHI-682 011.

¶14

5 K.J.JULIUS S/O.K.P.JOSEPH, KALLUVEETIL HOUSE, SAMAJAM ROAD, VADUTHALA P.O., KOCHI - 682 023.

¶15

ADDL.6 KOCHUTHRESIA JULIUS, AGED 76 YEARS, W/O.K.J.JULIUS, KALLUVEETTIL HOUSE, SAMAJAM ROAD, VADUTHALA P.O., COCHIN – 682 023 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶16

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶17

-: 2 :-

¶18

ADDL.7 K.J.PATRICIA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O.LATE K.J.JULIUS, KALLUVEETTIL HOUSE, SAMAJAM ROAD, VADUTHALA P.O., COCHIN – 682 023 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADDL.8 K.J.LOUI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.J.JULIUS, KALLUVEETTIL HOUSE, SAMAJAM ROAD, VADUTHALA P.O., COCHIN – 682 023 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADDL.9 K.J.BENJAMIN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.J.JULIUS, KALLUVEETTIL HOUSE, SAMAJAM ROAD, VADUTHALA P.O., COCHIN – 682 023 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADDITIONAL R6-R9 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.10.2022 IN I.A.No.1/2022 IN WP(C)29628/2018. BY ADVS. SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP SRI.K.ANAND SRI.A.K.GOPALAN SRI.K.R.RAMESH SMT.AARYA G. SRI.JOSEPH K.L.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.5.2023 ALONG WITH WP(C).22889/2018, THE COURT ON 12.7.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶21

-: 3 :-

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶25

WEDNESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1945 WP(C) NO.22889 OF 2018

¶26

PETITIONER :-

¶27

1 K.J.JULIUS, AGED 78 YEARS (DECEASED) S/O.K.P JOSEPH, KALLUVEETTIL HOUSE, SAMAJAM ROAD, VADUTHALA, COCHIN – 682 023.

¶28

ADDL.2 KOCHUTHRESIA JULIUS, AGED 76 YEARS, W/O.K.J.JULIOUS, KALLUVEETTIL HOUSE, SAMAJAM ROAD, VADUTHALA P.O., COCHIN – 682 023, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶29

ADDL.3 J.PATRICIA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O.LATE K.J.JULIUS, KALLUVEETTIL HOUSE, SAMAJAM ROAD, VADUTHALA P.O., COCHIN – 682 023, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶30

ADDL.4 K.J.LOUI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.J.JULIUS, KALLUVEETTIL HOUSE, SAMAJAM ROAD, VADUTHALA P.O., COCHIN – 682 023, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶31

ADDL.5 K.J.BENJAMIN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.J.JULIUS, KALLUVEETTIL HOUSE, SAMAJAM ROAD, VADUTHALA P.O., COCHIN – 682 023, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶32

ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17-10-2022 IN IA 1/2022 IN WPC

¶33

BY ADVS. A.K.GOPALAN K.R.RAMESH AARYA G.

¶34

RESPONDENTS :-

¶35

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RB) DEPRATMENT, SECRTARIAT,

¶36

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶37

-: 4 :-

¶38

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.

¶39

2 THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER (VIGILANCE) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 3 THE ASSISTANT TOWN PLANNER REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN – 682 011. 4 THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN CORPORATION, PARK AVENUE, COCHIN – 682 011. 5 M/S.MYLAADY WAREHOUSING (P) LTD KALOOR-POTTAKKUZHI CROSS ROAD, KALOOR P.O., COCHIN – 682 017 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ADDL.6 K.J.SAM, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.J.JULIUS, KALLUVEETTIL HOUSE, POTTAKUZHY ROAD, KALOOR P.O., COCHIN-682 017 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17-10-2022 IN IA 1/2022 IN WPC ADDL.7 THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, URBAN AFFAIRS, CENTRAL REGION, NEAR SREEDHAR THEATRE, ERNAKULAM – 682 031. ADDL.8 VARGHESE C, S/O.CHACKO, KATHANARUPARAMBIL, MANIMALA ROAD, JAWAHAR LANE, PONEA VIA.AIMS, PONEKKARA, COCHIN – 682 041. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.7.2023 IN I.A.No.2/2021. BY ADVS. SRI.APPU P.S, GP SRI.PRAVEEN K.JOY SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX SRI.MANU SANKAR P.

¶40

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶41

-: 5 :-

¶42

SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL CHINNA ASWATHY ABRAHAM SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL SRI.RAJAN G. GEORGE

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.5.2023 ALONG WITH WP(C).29628/2018, THE COURT ON 12.7.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶45

-: 6 :-

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

Dated this the 12th day of July, 2023 [W.P.(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 of 2018]

¶48

W.P.(C) No.22889/2018 is filed challenging Ext.P7 order of the

¶49

Government in so far as it directs the consideration of regularisation of the illegal construction carried out by the 5^th respondent in accordance with Rule 143 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules (for short, 'the KMBR'), 1999 as also seeking directions to the 4^th respondent to cancel the permits and licenses issued to the 5^th respondent for the construction of the building in Survey No.39/2 of Elamkulam Village and seeking demolition of the unauthorised construction.

¶50

W.P.(C) No.29628/2018 is filed by the 5^th respondent in the earlier writ petition challenging the very same Government Order which has been produced as Ext.P13 therein as also the consequential notice issued by the Corporation as Ext.P14. The parties and documents are being referred to in this judgment as arrayed in W.P.(C) No.29628/2018 since the pleadings and the documents are more comprehensive in the said writ petition.

¶51

The contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29628/2018 is as follows :- The petitioner Company is aggrieved

¶52

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶53

-: 7 :-

¶54

by Ext.P13 direction issued by the 1^st respondent to seek further regularisation of its building which has already been regularised in terms of Ext.P6 issued by the 1^st respondent. It is submitted that the building was constructed in conformity with Ext.P1 building permit issued by the 3^rd respondent and that it did not violate any rules relating to set back or any substantive provisions under the Kerala Municipality Act or the Building Rules made thereunder. It is stated that the 1^st respondent directed further regularisation on a finding that the area where the construction made was a residential zone while the Corporation granted permission for a commercial building. It was found that the area was mixed zone in the revised structural plan, but the coverage of the building should be restricted to 50%. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to reduce the coverage of an already completed building to comply with the revised structural plan. It is submitted that in pursuance to Ext.P13, the 4^th respondent had also issued Ext.P14 calling upon the petitioner to comply with the directions in Ext.P13 and further threatened follow up action as contemplated therein in the event of failure to do so. It is submitted that Ext.P14 is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and peremptory in nature and the same has been issued on grounds not enumerated under Rule 16 of the Building Rules. The 4^th respondent followed the ipse dixit of the 1^st respondent in

¶55

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶56

-: 8 :-

¶57

the matter of issuing Ext.P14 and no independent consideration was made.

¶58

It is contended that the 5^th respondent, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22889/2018, is the brother of the earlier owner of the property and had raised objections to the constructions only due to the personal animosity against the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised stands covered by a judgment of this Court in Shivaprasad v. State of Kerala [2011 (1) KLT 690] where it was held that the various provisions of the Town Planning Act, 1920 (Madras) varies with the scheme of the Municipality Act. Section 51(4) of the Municipality Act as now amended is, therefore, unworkable in the light of the conflicting provisions of the Town Planning Acts and the Municipality Act, 1994 and as Municipality Act, 1994 will prevail over them. It is submitted that the construction was on the basis of a competent permit issued by the Corporation under the 1994 Act and the 1999 Building Rules framed thereunder and there is no violation of the permit or the provisions of the Building Rules. It is, therefore, contended that the contentions raised against the construction on the ground that they are at variance with the structural plan for Kochi City is completely untenable and therefore, Ext.P13 order of the Government which requires that the

¶59

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶60

-: 9 :-

¶61

construction should be brought in conformity with the structural plan is completely untenable. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the fact that the construction was carried out in accordance with the building permit and is in accordance with the provisions of the Building Rules without any violation thereof, the construction is proper and requires no regularisation.

¶62

The learned counsel would also place reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.9846/2017 and the judgments reported in Mahinkutty v. Perumbavoor Municipality [2017 (3) KLT 638], Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala [2011 (3) KLT 317] to contend that since the structural plan for Kochi City had not been implemented in the area and since the petitioner's property is situated in a place where several commercial buildings have been permitted to be constructed without reference to the provisions of the structural plan by the Corporation itself by issuing due licenses, the petitioner's construction alone cannot be discriminated against only because objections had been raised by the 5^th respondent. It is contended that with regard to the very same structural plan, this Court had repeatedly held that the building permits granted which are at variance with the structural plan in the very same locality have to be looked into before deciding whether the structural plan had actually been implemented in the area in question.

¶63

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶64

-: 10 :-

¶65

The learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent submits that the petitioner had initially obtained a building permit to construct an apartment complex in his property. A building permit was obtained on on 15.9.1995, but it was not renewed and it expired on 14.12.1998. Later, a fresh permit for construction of a commercial complex was applied for without disclosing the earlier application or the construction made on the basis of the same. It is further stated that the construction was based on a plan submitted by a person who was not competent to certify the same. It is submitted that a quick verification had been conducted on the basis of a complaint submitted by the 5^th respondent and that a report had been generated on 9.3.2012 which is produced as Ext.P1 along with W.P.(C).No.22889 of 2018. It is stated that several irregularities were detected in the verification and a vigilance case was also registered under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the Corporation had been directed to cancel all permits and certificates issued to the building. It is stated that a factual report was also filed on 30.11.2013. It is submitted that the Government Order had been interfered with by this Court in the common judgment dated 6.3.2017 only on the technical ground that the order of cancellation of certificates/ permits was issued without hearing the parties. It is

¶66

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶67

-: 11 :-

¶68

submitted that thereafter, the parties were heard and the present order has been rendered. It is further contended that a civil dispute is pending as RFA No.648/2016 with regard to the earlier construction.

¶69

The 3^rd and 4^th respondents have also placed a counter affidavit on record contending that the building permit was granted to the petitioner for the construction of ground plus three floors and that a partial occupancy certificate was granted, when the work of the ground floor was completed. It is submitted that thereafter the 5^th respondent submitted a complaint against the petitioner and then a revised plan was submitted by the petitioner which was forwarded to the Chief Town Planner for approval. It is submitted that as per the direction of the Chief Town Planner, first floor was regularized and occupancy was granted. It is submitted that thereafter the 5^th respondent filed a complaint before the Vigilance Court and a quick verification was conducted and the Vigilance Department has forwarded a recommendation to cancel all the certificates in respect of the building. On the basis of the recommendation, the Government passed an order directing cancellation of all certificates. This was challenged before this Court and this Court, by judgment dated 06.03.2021, set aside the Government Order dated 20.10.2012, granting liberty to the

¶70

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶71

-: 12 :-

¶72

Government to initiate action, after hearing the petitioner and the 5^th respondent. Thereafter, complying with the judgment dated 06.03.2021, the impugned order was passed. The petitioner was also directed to remove the violations within 3 months which was also not complied with.

¶73

The 1^st and 2^nd respondents have also placed a counter affidavit on record contending that according to the Zoning Regulation, 1991, the area of alleged building was under structural plan for residential zone of Kochi and that the permit allotted for constructing a commercial building was in violation of the Zoning regulation. But, as per the revised structural plan of Kochi, 2007, the particular area comes under the mixed use zone and the construction of commercial building is permitted in mixed use zone. It is submitted that when excess construction was made in the first floor, the Government directed the Chief Town Planner (Vigilance) to conduct a site inspection and report whether there is any violation. The Chief Town Planner, thereafter, reported violations and recommended that if the defects are rectified by the petitioner, the Secretary shall regularize the building. It was also directed that if the defects are not rectified, the Secretary shall cancel all the permits granted.

¶74

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶75

-: 13 :-

¶76

The 5^th respondent in W.P(C) No.22889/2018 has placed a counter affidavit on record, contending that the construction of the building was in conformity with the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 and that the documents have been certified by a duly qualified expert as required under the Act and Rules. It is stated that the defects pointed out by the 1^st respondent were rectified and the same was reported to the 4^th respondent who issued the occupancy certificate on 28.07.2011. Thereafter, a complaint was filed at the instance of the petitioner before the Enquiry Commissioner and the Special Judge and a vigilance case was registered subsequently, but the 5^th respondent was not arrayed as an accused.

¶77

The 2^nd respondent Chief Town Planner (Vigilance) in W.P.(C) No.22889/2018 has also placed a counter affidavit on record contending that the Rules have been amended and the Zonal Regulations have been varied and now, there are only two violations which can be regularized by the Secretary, if rectified.

¶78

The 3^rd respondent Assistant Town Planner in W.P.(C) No.22889/2018 has placed a counter affidavit on record stating that the construction can be regularized as per Section 143 of the Kerala Municipaity Building Rules, 1999 by submitting a revised

¶79

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶80

-: 14 :-

¶81

application complying with the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act and Building Rules, 1999.

¶82

The additional 7^th respondent in W.P.(C) No.22889/2018 has placed a counter affidavit on record contending that he was registered with the 4^th respondent and is in possession of Exhibit R7(a) license No. MOP3-818/CER/93 issued under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is submitted that later he got certificate of Registration from the Director of Municipal Administration under the provisions of the Municipality Building Rules, 1999 and that he is duly competent to prepare and sign the plan.

¶83

A reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the 7^th respondent has also been placed on record by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.22889/2018 stating that the additional 7^th respondent misrepresented himself as “Consulting Engineer” and that the licenses and permits issued to the 5^th respondent on the basis of drawings and applications for building permits are vitiated by fraud and are liable to be cancelled.

¶84

Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that the aspect of applicability of schemes prepared under the erstwhile Town Planning Acts have been saved by the provisions of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 (for short, 'the 2016 Act'). A Division Bench of this Court had considered the

¶85

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶86

-: 15 :-

¶87

applicability of the schemes framed under the repealed Acts and had held that the schemes would continue in force under the provisions of the 2016 Act. Therefore, the contention that the schemes have ceased to be operative cannot be raised by the petitioner even on the strength of the judgment of this Court in Shivaprasad's case. However, this Court has repeatedly held that in case the local body concerned had been granting building permits in the area in question without considering the provisions of a particular scheme and if the area had lost its character as a particular zone under the Town Planning Scheme in the light of the grant of building permits without reference to such scheme, then the mere fact that a construction is at variance with the scheme by itself would not lead to any action for demolition of the constructions made in accordance with valid building permits. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are authority on this point. With regard to the structural plan for Kochi City also, where building permits had been granted to commercial buildings in residential zones, this Court had held that the mere fact that the area is designated as residential in the scheme, by itself, would not permit the local authority which granted the licence to contend that the construction is illegal.

¶88

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶89

-: 16 :-

¶90

In the instant case also, it is not in dispute that taking note of the building permits granted in the area in question, the zoning regulations had been amended and the area was redesignated as a mixed zone in the year 2007. The building permit in the instant case was one granted on 20.3.2001. The 5^th respondent had raised objections and several proceedings followed. Commercial occupancy was granted to the first floor of the building in the year 2011 on the basis of Government directions and on the recommendations of the Chief Town Planner. The revised structural plan of 2007 designated the area as mixed zone and the construction of a commercial-cum-show room/office is permitted in the zone and the FAR would also be permissible under the 2007 structural plan.

¶91

The contention raised in W.P.(C) No.22889/2018 that the additional 7^th respondent was not competent to prepare and sign the plans in support of the application for building permit also does not appear to be correct since the true copy of the licenses held by the 7^th respondent have been produced as Ext.R7(a). A counter affidavit filed by the licensing authority in an earlier writ petition filed by K.J.Julius is also produced by the 7^th respondent in support of his contention that the allegations raised against him are wrong. A reading of the Quick Verification Report would also show that the

¶92

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶93

-: 17 :-

¶94

contention that the 7^th respondent did not have a licence to prepare the plan was negated even in the quick verification. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contention raised that the building put up on the basis of the building permit and in respect of which occupancy had been granted by the Corporation is liable to be further regularised or pulled down as being violative of the structural plan is an untenable contention.

¶95

The quick verification report relied on states that the permit allotted for the construction of commercial cum show room/commercial cum office is a violation of the Zoning Regulations, 1991. It is further stated that the grant of the permit is in violation of structural plan and Rule 150 of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1999. The quick verification officer recommended to initiate departmental enquiry against the suspect officers. It also recommended ratification of the action of the suspect officers in the construction of temporary roof sheeting without proper permission. A recommendation was also issued for cancellation of permits/certificates issued to the building. Ext.P2 would show that the evidence produced is insufficient for a prosecution against the accused officers and the Corporation authorities were directed to inspect the construction and ratify the same after imposing penalty as per Kerala Municipal Building

¶96

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶97

-: 18 :-

¶98

Rules, 1999. It was thereafter that the Government Order was passed which was subjected to a challenge which led to Ext.P3 judgment.

¶99

Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that apart from the violation of the structural plan, there is no allegation with regard to any other violation of the provisions of the Building Rules. Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.29628/18 is a letter issued by the Government to the Corporation to verify the open space and encroachment and to consider regularisation of the construction if it satisfies the Building Rules and the Scheme. It appears that thereafter, the ground first floor of the building have been numbered and occupancy certificate issued as evidenced by Ext.P9. In the above view of the matter and in the light of the fact that the area where the construction was made had, thereafter, been included in the mixed zone and the construction became permissible, I am of the opinion that the direction in the Government Order to cancel the building permit in respect of a building which has already been constructed is unwarranted.

¶100

In the result, W.P.(C) No.22889/2018 fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned order in W.P.(C) No.29628/2018 is set aside. It is made clear that in case there are any variations in the construction carried out by the petitioner in

¶101

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶102

-: 19 :-

¶103

violation of the approved plan and permit which have not been regularised till date, the respondents can require the regularisation of those constructions after issuing proper notice to the petitioner. However, no further construction shall be carried out by the petitioner in the property without obtaining proper permits from the Corporation. It is also made clear that the question of regularisation shall be considered specifically taking note of the Rules in force as on the date of issuance of the building permit. Necessary action, as found required, shall be taken by the Corporation within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with due notice to the petitioner and after hearing his contentions.

¶104

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶105

Jvt/6.6.2023

¶106

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶107

-: 20 :-

¶108

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29628/2018

¶109

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS :-

¶110

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED TO THE
	PETITIONER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI-STORIED BUILDING.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27/02/2009 SEND BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19/09/2008 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.EYP3-2761/2012 DATED 05/11/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 14/11/2013 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (WITHOUT ANNEXURES)
EXHIBIT P6	TYPED COPY OF LETTER NO.27994/RBI/08/LSGD DATED 26/12/2008 OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION MOP 7(EYP2)- 103/2001 DATED 08/02/2011 RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLIANCE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF REGULARIZATION FEE.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 28/07/2011 BY THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.41615/RBI/2012/LSGD DATED 20/10/2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE AND LOCATION OF THE BUILDING.
EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 06/03/2017 IN

¶111

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶112

-: 21 :-

¶113

WP(C) NO.8679/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT.

¶114

EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. GO (RT) NO.1553/2018/LSGD DATED 07/06/2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶115

EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EYP3-1177/15 DATED 13/07/2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶116

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :-

¶117

EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.02.2002 TO 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶118

EXHIBIT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31.08.2018 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶119

EXHIBIT R5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.10.2013 IN WPC No.26108/13.

¶120

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶121

-: 22 :-

¶122

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22889/2018

¶123

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS :-

¶124

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE Q.V.REPORT DATED 9/3/2012

¶125

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FACTUAL REPORT DATED 30/11/2013.

¶126

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 6/3/2017 IN WPC 7039/09 & CONNECTED CASES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶127

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/01/2017 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER.

¶128

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28/6/2018 FROM THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR.

¶129

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED 20/3/2001

¶130

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1553/2018/LSGD DATED 7/6/2018 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶131

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 16.08.2022 ISSUED TO ADDL.8TH RESPONDENT.

¶132

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.09.2014 ISSUED TO THE ADDL.8TH RESPONDENT BY ADDL.7TH RESPONDENT.

¶133

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2019 IN WPC No.20266/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶134

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER No.G6/1796/18 DATED 28.06.2018 ISSUED BY ADDL.7TH RESPONDENT.

¶135

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :-

¶136

EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.11.2016 IN APPEAL No.147/2016 OFF THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY APPELLATE AUTHORITY.

¶137

WP(C) Nos.29628 & 22889 OF 2018

¶138

-: 23 :-

¶139

EXHIBIT R7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE No.MOP 3-815/CER/93 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶140

EXHIBIT R7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DIRECTOR OF TRAINING, THOZHIL BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN WPC 20266 OF 2017.

Mylaady Ware Housing Private Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mylaady Ware Housing Private Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohamed Shabeer Vs Anil.C.

Makkar Vm Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Alphonsa Aji, Vs Sibi

Nisha K S Vs Sheeba George

K.J. Julius Vs the State of Kerala

K.M.Suresh Kumar Vs Tahsildar, Kozhikode