Kerala High Court
WP(C)/29141/2012 of SAIM HASSAN KOLA Vs THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 WP(C).No. 29141 of 2012 (P) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- SAIM HASSAN KOLA, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. KOLA MUHAMMED KASIM, SAIMS M.C. ENCLAVE,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
WP(C).No. 29141 of 2012 (P)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-------------
SAIM HASSAN KOLA, AGED 24 YEARS
S/O. KOLA MUHAMMED KASIM,
SAIMS M.C. ENCLAVE, KUYYALI, KAVUMBHAGOM P.O.
THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN
RESPONDENT(S):--------------
1. THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 670 141.
2. THE SECRETARY
THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY - 670 141.
3. THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, THALASSERY - 670 141. THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, THALASSERY - 670 141.
4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
BY SRI. I.V. PROMOD, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO. 1704/2007 OF THALASSERY SRO.
EXHIBIT-P2- TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETIIONER.
EXHIBIT-P3- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICAION NO. E3/BA/546/12-13 DATED 20/11/2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P4- TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 29/11/1983.
EXHIBIT-P5- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) 25572/2007.
EXHIBIT-P6- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) 3715/2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
ds
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.29141 of 2012
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner applied for a building permit to construct a shop-cum-residential building. The said application was rejected and thedecision communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P3 letter dated20.11.2012. The reason stated for rejecting the building permit wasthat there is a proposal to widen the Venus-Kuyyali Road to a width of20 meters and therefore, the application for building permit cannot beconsidered. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. Relying on the decision of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 465) and the unreported decisions of this Courtin W.P.(C) No.25572 of 2007 (Ext.P5) and W.P.(C) No.3715 of 2012(Ext.P6), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contendedthat the proposal to widen a road cannot be a reason to deny thebuilding permit especially when steps have not been taken to acquirethe land for widening the road. The respondents have been served andthey have entered appearance.
3. Heard learned counsel on both sides. The issue raised by thepetitioner is covered in his favour by the decision of this Court inPadmini v. State of Kerala (supra) and the unreported decisions of W.P.(C) No.29141 of 2012
this Court in W.P.(C) No.25572 of 2007 (Ext.P5) and W.P.(C) No.3715of 2012 (Ext.P6), wherein it has been held that an application forbuilding permit cannot be rejected on the ground that the land isproposed to be acquired or that the land is required for widening aroad so long as the notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894has not been issued. In the light of the binding decisions of this Courtincluding the decisions in W.P.(C) No.25572 of 2007 (Ext.P5) and W.P.(C) No.3715 of 2012 (Ext.P6) to which the Thalassery Municipality isitself a party, it has necessarily to be held that Ext.P3 cannot besustained.
I accordingly allow the writ petition, set aside Ext.P3 and directthe Secretary, Thalassery Municipality to reconsider the petitioner'sapplication for building permit and pass appropriate decision thereon inaccordance with law, expeditiously, and in any event within one monthfrom the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of thisjudgment before him.
rkc
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.