C. Rejitha vs Thalassery Municipality on 9 October, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 22746 of 2007(G)


1. C. REJITHA, D/O. KESAVAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,

3. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :09/10/2007

 O R D E R
                            PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
                 ..........................................................
                           W.P.(C)No.22746 OF 2007
                 ...........................................................
                   DATED THIS THE 9TH OCTOBER, 2007

                                  J U D G M E N T

The grievance of the petitioner who owns 9 cents of land in

R.S.No.79/3A of Thiruvangadu Village of Thalassery Taluk is that her

application for building permit for the construction of a residential

building on the above property, which is her only property, has been

rejected by the Municipality by Ext.P2. The reason stated in Ext.P2 is

that the area is ear-marked as industrial zone in the master plan of the

Municipality. Ext.P2 is impugned on various grounds and the Writ

Petition is filed with the following prayers:-

“(i) Call for the records leading to the issuance of

Ext.P2 from the 2nd respondent and quash the same by

issuing a writ of certiorari;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the

respondents to issue permit to construct a residential

building in R.S.No.79/3A of Thiruvangadu Village and

approve the plan submitted by the petitioner

forthwith;”

2. Heard Sri.C.P.Peethambaran, counsel for the petitioner and

Sri.I.V.Pramod, Standing Counsel for the Municipality. The learned

WP(C)N0.22746/07
-2-

counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Ext.P6 judgment which,

according to him, was rendered on similar facts.

3. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, I am

of the view that the issue is covered by Ext.P6 judgment. Ext.P6, in

fact, pertains to another application for building permit for construction

of residential building in Thalassery Village itself. In Ext.P6, I noticed

that the D.T.P. Scheme (the D.T.P. Scheme referred to therein is the

Scheme referred to in Ext.P2 also) was notified as early as in 1950 and

that the same has not been implemented. The judgments of this Court

in G.C.D.A. v. Dr.M.Chandrasekhar (1994 (1) KLT 778), Hassan v.

Corporation of Calicut (1996 (2) KLT 839) and Beerankutty v.

Municipal Commr., Manjery (1984 KLT Sh.Notes Case No.77, p.46)

are relevant.

Under these circumstances, I dispose of this Writ Petition

quashing Ext.P2 and directing the Municipality to pass fresh orders on

the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit and on

the original of the plan submitted by the petitioner provided she files

an affidavit in which she will state that in the event of any portion of

the building to be constructed on the strength of the building permit to

be granted by the Municipality in her favour being acquired by the

WP(C)N0.22746/07
-3-

Municipality for industrial development within a period of one year of

grant of permit, the petitioner will not make any claim for

compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. Once the affidavit is

perused, orders will be passed at the earliest and at any rate within

one month of receiving copy of this judgment, without being influenced

by the currency of the D.T.P. Scheme.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
tgl

WP(C)N0.22746/07
-4-

WP(C)N0.22746/07
-5-