High Court Kerala High Court

Sabeena Hussain vs Thalassery Minicipality on 3 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sabeena Hussain vs Thalassery Minicipality on 3 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4509 of 2010(K)


1. SABEENA HUSSAIN, AGED 37 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THALASSERY MINICIPALITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,THALASSERY MINICIPALITY,

3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :03/09/2010

 O R D E R
                          P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

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

                       W.P.(C) No.4509 of 2010

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

             Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010

                            J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land, 9 cents in

extent, situated in R.Sy.No.25/2A of Thalassery Village. She

submitted an application to the Secretary of Thalassery Municipality

for a building permit to put up a residential building therein. The said

application was rejected by Ext.P2 order dated 13.1.2010 on the short

ground that a proposal to acquire a portion of the said land for the

purpose of a new road is in contemplation. Ext.P2 is under challenge

in this writ petition.

2. It is now well settled by a serious of decisions of this

Court including the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in

Padmini v. State of Kerala (1993 (3) KLT 465), that an application

for a building permit can be rejected only on the grounds enumerated

in the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 or the Kerala

Municipality Building Rules, 1994. The reasons set out in Ext.P2 is not

referrable either to the provisions of Section 402 of the Kerala

Municipality Act, 1994 or Rule 12 of the Kerala Municipality Building

Rules, 1994. It is only in cases where the land is already notified for

acquisition that a building permit can be declined. The mere fact that a

W.P.(C) No.4509 of 2010

2

portion of the land is likely to be acquired in future is not a reason to

withhold a building permit. I am therefore persuaded to hold that the

stand taken by the Secretary, Thalassery Municipality in Ext.P2 cannot

be sustained.

I accordingly quash Ext.P2 and dispose of the writ petition

with a direction to the second respondent to consider the application

for building permit submitted by the petitioner and take an

appropriate decision thereon, in accordance with law expeditiously,

and in any event, within one month from the date on which she

produces a copy of this judgment before the second respondent. The

petitioner shall pay the requisite fee, if any, on being informed of the

same by the Secretary of the Municipality.

P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge.

nj.