IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15381 of 2010(W)
1. R.K.ABDULLA HAJI, CHITTAKOTH HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. V.SUBAIDA, D/O. ASSAINAR, CHITTAKOTH
Vs
1. THE CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, REPRESNTED
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :07/10/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.15381 of 2010-W
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner’s application for building permit stands rejected as per
Ext.P5 on the ground that the area wherein the proposed building is to be
constructed, is included in a residential zone.
2. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of a parcel of
land having an extent of 44.47 cents comprised in Ward No.17, EW 42,
Block No.12 in T.S. Nos.431 and and 433 of Calicut Corporation by virtue
of registered sale deed Nos.297/2008, 413/2008 and 924/2008. It is
averred in the writ petition that the above property is situated in a prime
location in Kozhikode City, in a busiest part which is a highly developed
commercial centre.
3. The petitioner’s contention appears to be that the detailed town
planning scheme formulated, was never implemented.
4. The Corporation has filed a counter affidavit disputing the claims
of the petitioner.
5. Along with affidavit dated 10.8.2010, the petitioner has produced
a location sketch showing the various commercial buildings in and near the
wpc 15381/2010 2
vicinity wherein the petitioner’s property is located. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that if an opportunity is given, the petitioner will be
able to satisfy that the area is not a residential locality. It is further pointed
out that the construction of various commercial buildings will show that the
D.T.P. Scheme was not at all implemented.
6. Evidently, Ext.P5 has been communicated without hearing the
petitioner. In that view of the matter, Ext.P5 is quashed. There will be a
direction to the Corporation to reconsider the application filed by the
petitioner. The petitioner will produce additional materials along with a
request and along with a copy of this judgment, within a period of one
month. Thereafter, the application will be reconsidered and a personal
hearing also will be given to the petitioner. Appropriate decision will be
taken after hearing the petitioner, within a further period of two months.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/