Disposed

Seena Ratheesh v. the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, Represented by Its Member Secretary

Kerala HC8 Jul 2024WP(C)/8053/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, owner of land in Edakkad village, challenged an order denying an occupancy certificate for a residential building on CRZ grounds, despite a prior clearance certificate for a similar structure. The High Court directed the Coastal Zone Authority to reconsider the matter afresh, considering the earlier clearance, within three months after furnishing an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter afresh, taking Ext.P7 into consideration, within three months, after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Seena Ratheesh Vs the Kerala Coastal Zone Management… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 8053 OF 2017

¶3

PETITIONER/S:

¶4

SEENA RATHEESH, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O RATHEESH,
PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, KEEZHUNNA P.O., KANNUR.

¶5

BY ADVS.
SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL
SMT.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL

¶6

RESPONDENTS :-

¶7

1THE KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN:695004,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBERSECRETARY.

¶8

2THE CORPORATION OF KANNUR
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
CORORATION OFFICE,KANNUR-670 001.

¶9

BY ADVS.
SRI.PRAKASH C.VADAKKAN. J., SC, KCZMA
SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)
SMT.S.AMBILY
SMT.M.MEENA JOHN, SC, KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Prakash M P
SRI. PRAKASH M.P. -SC

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C) NO. 8053 OF 2017

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following prayers :-

¶15

(I) to call for the records leading to Ext.P7 and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P6

¶16

(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the first respondent to issue clearance certificate/occupancy certificate to the residential building of the petitioner which is situated in Ward No.XIII and numbered as 667 and which situates withing the limits of the Corporation of Kannur (second respondent)

¶17

(iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case; and

¶18

(iv) award cost of the proceeding.

¶19

The petitioner is the owner of 6.47 Ares of land in Re.Sy.No.2/7 of Edakkad village. As per Ext.P3 – building permit issued by the second respondent, the construction of the building was completed and was numbered as 667 in ward No.XIII of the Kannur Corporation (earlier Edakkad Grama

¶20

WP(C) NO. 8053 OF 2017

¶21

¶22

Panchayat). Thereafter, Ext.P6 order was passed by the 1^st respondent declining to grant the occupancy certificate on the ground that the residential building constructed by the petitioner is at a distance of 83 metres from HTL of sea, which is the NDZ of CRZ III. Aggrieved by Ext.P6, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the same.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a case with a similar issue, Ext.P7 clearance certificate dated 19.03.2016 was issued by the 1^st respondent. The occupancy certificate was denied to the petitioner by 2^nd respondent, as per Ext.P6 order dated 16.01.2017. On 23.03.2017, this Court by way of an interim order had directed the 2^nd respondent to issue an occupancy certificate in respect of the building of the petitioner bearing Door No.XIII/ 667 of the Kannur Corporation. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the interim order, occupancy certificate was issued by the 2^nd respondent.

¶25

On perusal of Ext.P7 clearance certificate issued to one Ratheesh Kumar, it is seen that the said building was also in

¶26

WP(C) NO. 8053 OF 2017

¶27

¶28

CRZ III , the same as that of the petitioner in this case. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for a direction to the 1^st respondent to reconsider the matter afresh, taking into consideration Ext.P7 clearance certificate issued in a similar case.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of as follows :-

¶30

The 1^st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, taking into consideration Ext.P7, with notice to the petitioner, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶31

It is made clear that, before any such orders are passed, the 1^st respondent shall afford the petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent, an opportunity of being heard.

¶32

The petitioner shall produce the certified copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition before the 1^st respondent for compliance.

¶33

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE

¶34

SMA

¶35

WP(C) NO. 8053 OF 2017

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8053/2017

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS :-

¶39

EXHIBIT P1:TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.1957/2007 DATED 22.6.2007 OF S.R.O.
KADACHIRA.
EXHIBIT P2:TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
DATED 21.1.2007 ISSUED BY EDAKKAD
VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P3:TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED
13.4.2009 ISSUED BY EDAKKAD GRAMA
PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P4:TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
26.10.2015 ISSUED BY EDAKKAD GRAMA
PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT P5:TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
23.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.1.2017
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7:TRUE COPY OF THE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 19.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.

Seena Ratheesh v. the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, Represented by Its Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seena Ratheesh v. the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, Represented by Its Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Lukose Vs the Divisional Manager

Thomas C.M Vs Tajuddeen K

V.P.Abbas Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Omana Vs the Secretary, Kerala Agricultural Debt Relief Commission

Theresa Jose Vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Manju.P Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board