Hamza vs The Malappuram Municipality on 12 February, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 4962 of 2008(N)


1. HAMZA, S/O.MOKARIKUTTY
                      ...  Petitioner
2. AYISHABI, W/O.HAMZA

                        Vs



1. THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :12/02/2008

 O R D E R
                                    PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.

                            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                            W.P.(c).No.4962 OF 2008

                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                  Dated this the 12th  day of February, 2008



                                          JUDGMENT

Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P2 order of the

respondent Municipality rejecting the application for building

permit submitted by the petitioner on the reason that the

property on which building is proposed to be constructed is a

paddy field as per Kottapady scheme. The petitioner relies on

Ext.P3 order issued by the Assistant Collector under the land

utilisation order granting permission for re-claiming a total extent

of 87 = cents in R.S.No.338/6, 344/10 of Malappuram village.

Ext.P3 is issued in favour of one Ibrahim Haji and the petitioner’s

case is that he purchased a portion of the property mentioned in

Ext.P3 from the above said Ibrahim Haji and that Ext.P3 should

enure to his benefit also. It is seen from Ext.P2 that Ext.P3 had not

been produced by the petitioner before the Municipality.

2. Sri.Babu.S.Nair has taken notice on behalf of the

Municipality. I have heard the submissions of

Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty, learned counsel for the petitioner and

WPC.No.4962/08 2

those of Sri.Babu.S.air also. I am of the view that the

Municipality should re-consider Ext.P2 in the light of Ext.P3.

Accordingly, I quash Ext.P2 and direct the petitioner to produce

Ext.P3 within ten days from today before the respondent

Municipality. Upon production of Ext.P3 by the petitioner before

the respondent, respondent will re-consider the question of

issuing building permit to the petitioner after hearing the

petitioner and pass fresh orders. Fresh orders as directed above

shall be passed by the Municipality at the earliest and at any rate

within a period of three weeks of petitioner producing a copy of

Ext.P3 before the respondent.

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE

JUDGE

sv.

WPC.No.4962/08 2