Disposed

Amina v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jul 2024WP(C)/26754/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Building permit applicants challenged a Municipality notice citing defects, chiefly proposed road widening. After their purchase proposal under Section 67 was rejected, the court directed reconsideration de hors the widening defect if other defects were cured.

What the court decided

AI extract

Amina Vs State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 26754 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1AMINA

¶8

AGED 62 YEARS
W/O LATHEEF, KAVANAD HOUSE, HARITHA ROAD, VENNALA P.O,
ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682028

¶9

2SAFA SAFEER
AGED 17 YEARS

¶10

D/O (LATE )SAFEER, KAVANAD HOUSE, HARITHA ROAD, VENNALA
P.O, ERNAKULAM,, MINOR REPRESENTED BY ITS GRANDFATHER (
GUARDIAN) LATHEEF K.M, AGED 68, KAVANAD HOUSE, HARITHA
ROAD, VENNALA P.O, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682028
BY ADVS.
MANSOOR ALI
JIBIN BABU

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RC) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001

¶13

2THE KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY
MUNICIPALITY OFFICE BUILDING, KODUNGALLUR P.O ,
THRISSUR., PIN – 680664

¶14

R1 BY SMT. DEVISHRI R., GP
R2 BY SRI. NOUSHAD K.A., SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 26754 OF 2023

¶17

-2-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The writ petition is filed being aggrieved by Ext.P4 notice issued by the 2^nd respondent Municipality, rejecting the building permit application submitted by the petitioners, by pointing out certain defects.

¶20

It is stated that petitioners are the owners of property as per Exts.P1 and P2 possession certificate and tax receipt. With an intention to construct a commercial building, the petitioners submitted an application before the 2^nd respondent Municipality. However, the 2^nd respondent Municipality issued Ext.P4 notice pointing out certain defects. One of the defects pointed out is with respect to the proposed widening of the road under the master plan. On receiving the said notice, the petitioners approached the 2^nd respondent Municipality under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, with a purchase proposal, produced as Ext.P5 dated 16.08.2023. However, the 2^nd respondent had rejected the proposal on the ground that the Municipality has no sufficient funds to purchase the same. Hence, the learned Counsel for the petitioners

¶21

WP(C) NO. 26754 OF 2023

¶22

-3-

¶23

seeks a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider their application for building permit in the light of the rejection of the purchase proposal by the Municipality, under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act.

¶24

The learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent Municipality submits that, while considering the building permit application submitted by the petitioners, some defects were noted. The primary defect is with respect to the proposed widening of the PWD road as per the master plan of the 2^nd respondent. The said road has 12 meter widening proposal and as such the petitioners were directed to resubmit the plan after including widening. The second defect is that the name of the owner mentioned in agreement and possession certificate was found to be inconsistent and they were directed to produce one and same certificate. The third defect is with respect to parking, which shall be made without any hindrance to the building access and Annexure L was not submitted as well. The fourth defect is that, on inspection, a compound wall was found around the plot. However, according to the submitted plan, the site boundary is found outside the compound wall. Since

¶25

WP(C) NO. 26754 OF 2023

¶26

-4-

¶27

the boundary is not clear, the petitioners were asked to produce Village Sketch as per notice dated 21.06.2023.

¶28

Since the petitioners have not rectified the above mentioned defects, the building permit application could not be considered. It is further submitted that the petitioners have submitted a purchase proposal under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act on 16.08.2023. The same was forwarded to the council on 30.09.2023. After consideration, the application submitted by the petitioners was rejected by the council as per decision number 18/01 on 13.10.2023.

¶29

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent Municipality.

¶30

The learned Counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to a judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.6011/2023 dated 23.03.2023, whereby, this Court has considered a case under similar circumstances, especially that of the 2^nd respondent Municipality. Since the issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C)No.6011/2023 dated 23.03.2023, I propose to dispose of this writ

¶31

WP(C) NO. 26754 OF 2023

¶32

-5-

¶33

petition with a direction to the 2^nd respondent Municipality to reconsider the building permit application submitted by the petitioners, de hors defect No.1, if the petitioners cure other defects. The application shall be considered and orders shall passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE

¶37

¶38

20.07.2024

¶39

WP(C) NO. 26754 OF 2023

¶40

-6-

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26754/2023

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶43

`Exhibit P1`	`THE TRU`	`E C`	`OPY`	`OF THE`	`POSSES`	`SION`
	`CERTIFIC` `OFFICER`	`ATE` `DATED`	`ISSU` `18/0`	`ED BY T` `3/2023`	`HE VIL`	`LAGE`
`Exhibit P2`	`THE TRUE` `PROPERTY`	`COPY`	`OF` `HAVI`	`THE TAX RE` `NG` `NU`	`CEIPT OF` `MBER`	`THE` `KL`
	`08051301` `OFFICER`	`742/20` `DATED`	`23` `19/0`	`ISSUED BY` `4/2023`	`THE VIL`	`LAGE`
`Exhibit P3`	`THE TRUE` `WITH THE`	`COPY` `APPL`	`OF` `ICAT`	`PLAN SUBM` `ION BY THE`	`ITTED A` `PETITIO`	`LONG` `NERS`
	`BEFORE` `RECEIPT`	`THE` `DATED`	`2ND` `15/0`	`RESPONDEN` `6/2023`	`T AND`	`ITS`
`Exhibit P4`	`THE TRUE` `24 DATED`	`COPY` `21.06`	`OF` `.202`	`THE NOTICE` `3`	`B.A-037`	`/23-`
`Exhibit P5`	`THE TRUE`	`COPY`	`OF`	`THE PURCHA`	`SE PROP`	`OSAL`
`RESPONDENT ANNEX`	`DATED 16` `2ND RESP` `URES`	`.08.2` `ONDENT`	`023` `AND`	`SUBMITTED` `ITS RECEI`	`BEFORE` `PT`	`THE`
`Annexure R2(a)`	`A true` `13/10/20`	`copy` `23`	`of`	`the dec`	`ision d`	`ated`

Amina v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Amina v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.J.Mathew Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies of Kerala

Lalu T.C Vs Avanur Grama Panchayat

P.T.Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala

Jenson Vs State of Kerala

Jabir V.B Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

K.G.Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala