IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15248 of 2008(M)
1. K.K.ABDUL NAZAR, AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KOZHIKKODE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKKODE CORPORATION,
3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,SC,KOZHIKODE CORP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/06/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 15248 OF 2008 M
====================
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The building permit sought for by the petitioner has been declined
by the respondent Corporation by Ext.P2 order. There are two reasons
stated. One is that the area in question is covered by a Town Planning
Scheme and the other is that the width of the access road is less than 5
metres and therefore there is non compliance with Rule33(4) of the Kerala
Municipality Building Rules.
2. In so far as the first objection is concerned, it is seen that the
Town Planning Scheme was framed way back in 1987 and till date nothing
further has been done. If that be so, there is absolutely no justification for
preventing the land owners from making use of their land. This issue has
been considered in several judgments of this court and this court had
taken the view that the mere pendency of a scheme without anything
more, can be no reason for denying permits to the land owners.
Therefore, I am not impressed by the first reason for rejection stated in
Ext.P2.
2. The next is the inadequacy of the width of the road. It is the
admitted position that going by Rule 33(4) of the Kerala Municipality
WPC 15248/08
: 2 :
Building Rules, the minimum required width of the access road is 5 metres.
Petitioner contends that in terms of the plan submitted by him (Ext.P1),
the width of the road is 5.1 metre. According to him, the available width of
the road satisfies the requirements. Even otherwise, it is now submitted
before me that on actual measurements, if the width is found to be less
than 5 metres, the petitioner will make up the deficiency and comply with
the requirement of Rule 33(4) of the Rules.
3. For the aforesaid reasons, the matter will stand remanded
back to the 1st respondent to reconsider the application made by the
Petitioner in the light of the observations made above. For that purpose,
Ext.P2 will stand quashed and the petitioner will be permitted to resubmit
Ext.P1 plan for consideration of the 1st respondent. It is directed that if
the petitioner submits Ext.P1 in the manner as directed above, the matter
will be reconsidered and orders passed within 6 weeks of submission of
Ext.P1.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp