Sreekantan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 10 December, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 34779 of 2008(M)


1. SREEKANTAN NAIR, PANCHAMI, VAZHUTHUR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.M.PREM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :10/12/2008

 O R D E R
                       S.SIRI JAGAN, J
                 ==================
                 W.P(C)No. 34779 of 2008
                 ==================
       Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008.

                       J U D G M E N T

The petitioner challenges Exts.P1, P2 and P4 orders.

Ext.P1 is the order of the 2nd respondent Municipality, rejecting

the application of the petitioner for building permit on the

ground that as per the master plan prepared under the Town

Planning Act, the area in question is a residential area and

petitioner’s application for building permit for construction of

a commercial building cannot therefore be granted. Ext.P2 is

the order of the Government whereby the petitioner’s

application for individual exemption from the scheme has been

rejected, in view of the fact that this court had in O.P. No.8740

of 1997 held that no such individual exemption can be granted

in respect of the scheme. Ext.P4 is a notice issued by the 2nd

respondent Municipality, whereby, the petitioner’s application

for exemption from the purview of the scheme has been

rejected.

2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner in

this case.

W.P(C)No. 34779 of 2008 – 2 –

3. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that a town

planning scheme is in existence. The Municipality has held

that as per that scheme the area in question is shown as a

residential area and therefore no building permit has been

issued for commercial purpose. In so far as Ext.P1 is

concerned, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner’s remedy lies in challenging the same by filing an

appeal as provided under the Kerala Municipality Act. As far

as Exts.P2 and P4 are concerned, the same are passed on the

basis of a Division Bench decision of this court holding that the

Government cannot grant individual exemption from a town

planning scheme, and therefore the same cannot be faulted.

In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the right

of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P1 in an appeal, this writ

petition is dismissed.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

rhs