Disposed

Tilly B. George, v. the Municipality of Adoor

Kerala HC4 Apr 2024WP(C)/17399/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a municipality's demolition order regarding shops allegedly built over parking spaces in a shopping complex. The court directed the municipality to measure the building against official records, verify deviations from the building permit after notice to the petitioner, and take appropriate steps under the Act if violations are found; license renewal depends on that decisi

What did the court decide?

Municipality directed to measure building per official records and check permit deviations within two months, with interim order continuing till then; demolition notice not quashed.

Tilly B. George, Vs the Municipality of Adoor — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 17399 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1TILLY B. GEORGE,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O K.G BABY, NAMBOZHIATHU (H), NEAR S.N MARKET,
ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691523

¶8

2LISSY TILLY,
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O TILLY B. GEORGE, NAMBOZHIATHU (H), NEAR S.N MARKET,
ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691523
BY ADVS.
MANU RAMACHANDRAN
M.KIRANLAL
T.S.SARATH
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SAMEER M NAIR
HARSHA SUSAN SAM
GEETHU KRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE MUNICIPALITY OF ADOOR, ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 689503

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, THE MUNICIPALITY OF ADOOR,ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689503 BY ADV SHRI.K.SHAJ, SC, ADOOR MUNICIPALITY

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 17399 OF 2022

¶14

..2..

¶15

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P, J.

¶16

========================

¶17

W.P.(C). No.17399 of 2022

¶18

========================

¶19

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2024

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioner challenges Ext.P5, an order directing the demolition of the portion allegedly converted from the parking area into two shop rooms. The petitioner alleges in the writ petition that he constructed a shopping complex in the year 2006, and the occupancy certificate was granted in the same year itself. Neither the building permit nor the occupancy certificate were produced in the writ petition. The petitioners submit that one of the licensees had applied for renewal of license and it was on that application, Ext.P5 was passed. The application dated 13.10.2021 was not produced to verify the same.

¶22

The prayers sought in the writ petition apart from quashing Ext.P5, is for a declaration that the power under

¶23

..3..

¶24

WP(C) NO. 17399 OF 2022

¶25

Section 242(5) of the Kerala Municipalities Act applies only to the extent of the building that is unauthorized and that the remaining portion of the same building can be used for lawful purposes, and also for a declaration that the 2nd petitioner is entitled to a renewal of the trade license in terms of law, notwithstanding the allegation of unauthorized construction in another portion of the same building.

¶26

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

¶27

Municipality, which, inter alia states that the petitioner illegally converted the parking spaces into two shops, and a license was sought for one of the shops. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that, as per the regulations in force the petitioners ought to have nine parking spaces instead of the seven now available. Since the permit, the occupancy the completion certificates were not produced by the petitioners, the area that the petitioner could have constructed is not clear and at any rate, these matters cannot be decided in this writ petition. The prayers sought for a declaration that the license is to be granted

¶28

WP(C) NO. 17399 OF 2022

¶29

..4..

¶30

notwithstanding the alleged violation cannot be countenanced. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality also submits that the entire file, including the permit of the building in question, has been missing. The Municipality will also find out whether a copy of the permit could be obtained from other departments of the government.

¶31

In such circumstances, the only way out is to direct the Municipality to measure the building based on the assessment register or other official records that will show the area to which the petitioner was entitled to construct. The Municipality will also find out whether any addition or alteration has been made in deviation of the building permit. This shall be done with notice to the petitioner. In case, the municipality finds violations or that the petitioner has converted portions of the parking space as alleged by them, appropriate steps can be taken under Section 406 or the relevant provisions of the Municipality Act. The question of grant of license or renewal will be based on the decision

¶32

WP(C) NO. 17399 OF 2022

¶33

..5..

¶34

to be taken as directed above. The Municipality will complete the said exercise within two months from today and till then the interim order granted by this court will continue.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

¶40

WP(C) NO. 17399 OF 2022

¶41

..6..

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17399/2022

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS :

¶44

EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATION OF
NABH ISSUED TO KARUNYA EYE HOSPITAL OF
2ND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2THE TRADE LICENSE ISSUED VIDE NO.
190/2020-2021 DATED 10.03.2020 IN FAVOUR
OF 2ND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3THE RECEIPT OF APPLICATION AND FEES PAID
FOR RENEWAL OF LICENSE DATED 20.03.2021
EXHIBIT P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 22.02.2022 PREFERRED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE VIDE NO.R1-
8700/21 DATED 25.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P6THE TRUE COPY OF LICENSE ISSUED BY THE
MUNICIPALITY DURING 2017-18 TO THE
MOBILE SHOP
EXHIBIT P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT
DATED 16.11.2007 ENTERED BETWEEN 1ST
PETITIONER AND UAE EXCHANGE
EXHIBIT P8THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SHOPPING COMPLEX
SHOWING THE U.A.E EXCHANGE, MOBILE SHOP
AS WELL AS EXISTING PARKING AS IN THE
APPROVED PLAN
EXHIBIT P9THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE DISPUTED
ROOMS WITH BUILDING NUMBER PLATES ISSUED
FROM ADOOR MUNICIPALITY PINNED TO THE
WALL.
EXHIBIT P10THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PARKING
IN THE BASEMENT AND PORTICO PORTION OF
THE BUILDING
EXHIBIT P11THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG
WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 25.02.2023
SUBMITTED BEFORE ASST. DRUG CONTROLLER,
PATHANAMTHITTA BY THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶45

// True Copy // PA To Judge

Tilly B. George, v. the Municipality of Adoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tilly B. George, v. the Municipality of Adoor

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

Rajasree N.P., Vs Erathu Grama Panchayat

Ameer Abdulazeez, Vs State of Kerala

Anwar Sha N.N, Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan T.S. Vs State of Kerala

Vimal Mavar, Vs Varapuzha Grama Panchayat

Jose George, Vs State of Kerala