Disposed

Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jun 2023WP(C)/6835/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Municipality for government sanction to vary the master plan regarding land classification. The Municipality must consider the petitioner's request as garden land within two months, addressing the issue before the Government under Section 50 of the Act if a variance is needed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the Municipality for government sanction to vary the master plan; Municipality to consider the request within two months.

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 6835 OF 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANIL KUMAR
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.BRAHMADEVAN, AGED 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT AMBILI BHAVANAM(CHEERUS),ADINADU THEKKU,
KATTILKADAVU P O,PIN-690542.
BY ADVS.
SRI.E.HARIDAS
SRI.A.N.BIJU

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT-DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, STATUE P O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶12

COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, PIN-691001.

¶13

3 THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER KOLLAM DISTRICT, CORPORATION OFFICE,KOLLAM,PIN-691001.

¶14

4 SECRETARY

¶15

KARUNAGAPILLY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPALITY OFFICE,
KARUNAGAPILLY P O, PIN-690518

¶16

5 ADDL.R5 R.D.O

¶17

CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, PIN-691013.

¶18

(ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/12/2018 IN
IA.NO.01/2018)

¶19

SRI.M.R.SASITH
SRI.APPU.P.S-GP

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 6835 OF 2018

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2023

¶25

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

¶26

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction Directing the respondents to hear the petitioner in person and direct the respondent to rectify the illegal change of the nature of land in newly prepared town planning for the interest of justice.

¶27

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction Directing the respondents to grant the commercial cum residential building permit as per the application submitted by the petitioner before the 4^th respondent for the interest of justice.

¶28

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction Directing the 3^rd respondent to correct the town plan as dry land/garden land/ purayidum instead of paddy/low laying area for the interest of justice.”

¶29

It is submitted in the writ petition that the petitioner who was

¶30

working abroad is the owner of 6.35 Ares of property in Resurvey No.74/16 of Adinadu Village, Karunagapilly Taluk of Kollam District.

¶31

It is submitted that the property is dry land and that it was erroneously included in the paddy/low lying area in a draft master plan prepared for the Karunagapilly Municipality. It is submitted that the petitioner had preferred an application for building permit on 14.12.2017 as

¶32

WP(C) NO. 6835 OF 2018

¶33

¶34

evidenced by Ext.P4 and the same was rejected by Ext.P6 stating that the petitioner’s property is included in the paddy/low lying area in the draft master plan and that the construction of a residential cum commercial building as suggested by the petitioner is not permissible. It is submitted that the petitioner’s property is clearly shown as ‘purayidom’ in the Basic Tax Register and that it is not included in the data bank. It is therefore submitted that the inclusion of the property in the paddy/low lying area and refusing to grant permission for constructions in the same is completely untenable.

¶35

A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 4^th respondent-Municipality stating that the property of the petitioner in Resurvey No.74/16 is included in the category of paddy/low lying area in the draft master plan for the Karunagapilly Municipality which was duly published on 19.07.2016 calling for objections from the public. It is submitted that no objections were submitted by the petitioner, but that he had applied for building permit on 14.12.2017. It is stated that the master plan had been approved by Government Order dated 31.07.2018 and that therefore the petitioner’s request cannot be

¶36

WP(C) NO. 6835 OF 2018

¶37

¶38

considered.

¶39

The 3^rd respondent has also placed a counter affidavit on record stating that the draft master plan was published in accordance with the provisions contained in the Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) on 19.07.2016 in two leading newspapers and also in the municipality website and notice board and 60 days time was given for objections and suggestions from the general public. It is submitted that all suggestions and objections were duly scrutinized and the master plan was finalized after considering all the objections received. It is submitted that the Government Order was issued on 31.07.2018. It is further contended that any variation of the master plan is permissible only in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act.

¶40

Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that the revision of a master plan is possible after the finalization of the same with the concurrence of the Government by the Municipal Council incorporating such modification as is necessary. I am therefore of the opinion that it is for the petitioner to approach the Municipality with a

¶41

WP(C) NO. 6835 OF 2018

¶42

¶43

an appropriate request for obtaining sanction from the Government for variance, if any, of the master plan. In case the petitioner approaches the Municipality, the request of the petitioner shall be considered taking note of the fact that the property in question is garden land and the contention of the petitioner that it was wrongly included in the paddy zone. On the petitioner approaching the municipality, the matter shall be addressed by the Municipality and the issue shall be taken up appropriately before the Government in terms of Section 50 of the Act. Necessary steps shall be taken within a period of two months from the date on which the petitioner approaches the Municipality with a proper representation.

¶44

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶47

NP

¶48

WP(C) NO. 6835 OF 2018

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6835/2018

¶51

`PETITIO`	`NER’S`	`EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`RELEVANT PAG`	`ES OF HIS PASSPORT AND VISA`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`COPY OF THE`	`REGISTERED DEED`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`COPY OF THE`	`RECENT RECEIPT OF THE LAND TAX`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`COPY OF THE` `APPLICATION` `14/11/2017`	`RECEIPT FOR THE SUBMISSION OF` `FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`COPY OF THE` `29/7/2017`	`POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`COPY OF THE` `RECEIVED FRO`	`INFORMATION DATED 27/1/2018` `M THE 4TH RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT.`	`LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8`	`COPY OF THE` `KARUNAGAPILY`	`TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY` `VILLAGE OFFICE`
`EXHIBIT`	`P9`	`COPY OF THE` `FOR LSG DATE`	`REPRESENTATION TO THE MINISTER` `D 9/2/2018`
`EXHIBIT`	`P10`	`A TRUE COPY`	`OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P11`	`COPY OF THE` `DATED 9/2/20`	`REPRESENTATION TO THE COLLECTOR` `18`
`EXHIBIT`	`P12`	`COPY OF THE` `AGRICULTURAL` `DATED 27/1/2`	`CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE` `OFFICER IN KARUNAGAPILLY TALUK` `018`
`EXHIBIT`	`P13`	`THE PHOTOGRA` `22.2.2018.`	`PHS OF THE SAID LAND TAKEN DATED`
`RESPOND`	`ENTS’`	`EXHIBITS:`
`EXHIBIT`	`R4(1)`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DISTRICT TOW`	`LETTER DATED 03.01.2018 OF` `N PLANNER`
`EXHIBIT`	`R4(2)`	`TRUE COPY OF` `INFORMATION`	`LETTER DATED 27.01.2018` `THE PETITIONER ABOUT REJECTION`

Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rappai.K.L Vs Thrissur Munciapal Corproation

Rappai.T.L. Vs the Secretary, Thrissur Municipal Corporation

M.Ramachandran Vs Thrissur Municipal Corporation

Govindan Nambiar Vs Secretary, Vellamunda Grama Panchayath

Noushad Vs the State of Kerala

Sudhamony Vs Secretary