{"id":64456,"date":"2007-05-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007"},"modified":"2015-04-05T06:26:54","modified_gmt":"2015-04-05T00:56:54","slug":"j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"J.Sasikumari Amma vs Trivandrum Development … on 11 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
J.Sasikumari Amma vs Trivandrum Development … on 11 May, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 15458 of 2005(M)\n\n\n1. J.SASIKUMARI AMMA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. L.S.BEENA, DO.DO.DO.\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. TRIVANDRUM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,\n\n3. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT\n\n4. NOUSHAD, S\/O.ABDUL AZEEZ,\n\n5. ABDUL AZEEZ, DO.DO.DO.\n\n6. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.SUKUMARAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\n\n Dated :11\/05\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                        PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                       W.P.(C)No.15458 of 2005\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                          Dated: 11th May, 2007\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Seeking quashment of Ext.P5 building permit issued by the<\/p>\n
Corporation of Trivandrum in favour of respondents 4 and 5, Ext.P12<\/p>\n
order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and<\/p>\n
Ext.P15 order of the Secretary of the Corporation of Trivandrum, the<\/p>\n
petitioners who are mother and daughter owning properties adjacent<\/p>\n
to the property owned by respondents 4 and 5 have filed this            Writ<\/p>\n
Petition which seeks other reliefs also. The first respondent is the<\/p>\n
Trivandrum Development Authority while respondents 2 and 3 are<\/p>\n
respectively are the Trivandrum Corporation and the Tribunal for<\/p>\n
Local Self Government Institutions and the 6th respondent is the State<\/p>\n
of  Kerala.   The    grievance      of   the    petitioners     is that their<\/p>\n
representations against the violation of building rules by respondents<\/p>\n
4 and 5 while making constructions in their property have not been<\/p>\n
properly considered by respondents 1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
      2. Ext.P1 is a rough sketch of the property belonging to the<\/p>\n
petitioners and respondents 4 and 5. The extent of the 1st petitioner’s<\/p>\n
property is 7 cents and it is on that property that the residential<\/p>\n
building of the petitioners is situated. Respondents 4 and 5 together<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.15458\/05                    – 2 –<\/span><\/p>\n
have 6 cents of land on the northern side of the 1st petitioner’s<\/p>\n
property and the 2nd petitioner has two cents on the eastern side of<\/p>\n
the respondents’ property. The properties of the 1st petitioner and the<\/p>\n
respondents have frontage of the National Highway and is situated at<\/p>\n
P.M.G.Junction. The door number of the 1st petitioner’s building is<\/p>\n
T.C.11\/52(1) to 11\/52(4) and the construction of that building was<\/p>\n
completed in the year 1998. It was only in 2000 that respondents 4<\/p>\n
and 5 purchased their plot from its previous owner. Ext.P2 dated<\/p>\n
29.11.2000 is copy of the building permit which was issued by the<\/p>\n
Corporation to respondents 4 and 5. The petitioners allege that on<\/p>\n
the strength of Ext.P2 respondents 4 and 5 proceeded with the<\/p>\n
construction, but in violation of Ext.P2 as well as the building rules.<\/p>\n
Unauthorised and illegal projections of 75 C.M. in width was made<\/p>\n
reducing the mandatory open space which should have been left and<\/p>\n
further construction above the ground floor was made from the<\/p>\n
periphery of the extension.       After filing a complaint before the<\/p>\n
Corporation, the 2nd petitioner filed O.P.No.28472 of 2001 before this<\/p>\n
court which was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated 3.12.2001.<\/p>\n
Under Ext.P3 the 2nd respondent was directed to take follow up action<\/p>\n
in case of violation. Since the undertaking of the Corporation in<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.15458\/05                  – 3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P3 that proper action will be taken, was not honoured, the 2nd<\/p>\n
petitioner filed a complaint before the Corporation, raising objection<\/p>\n
against digging of an unauthorised well also. Noticing that only the<\/p>\n
brick construction upwards on the unauthorised structure alone was<\/p>\n
removed and the other offending structures were allowed to remain,<\/p>\n
the 2nd petitioner filed O.P.No.19811 of 2002 before this court. This<\/p>\n
court disposed of that O.P. by Ext.P4 judgment directing the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent to consider the objections of the 2nd petitioner in case a<\/p>\n
detailed representation is made and pass orders. The petitioners<\/p>\n
submit that an Advocate Commissioner appointed by this court in<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 case reported existence of the objectionable well and 75 C.M.<\/p>\n
of reduction of set back area on the eastern side of the building of<\/p>\n
respondents 4 and 5. In the meanwhile Ext.P5 fresh permit dated<\/p>\n
6.5.2002 was issued to respondents 4 and 5 by the Corporation for<\/p>\n
the construction of an additional floor for their building over and<\/p>\n
above those permitted under Ext.P2. On the strength of Ext.P5,<\/p>\n
respondents 4 and 5 proceeded to construct an additional floor using<\/p>\n
the 75 C.M. unauthorised beam on the rear side also as plinth area of<\/p>\n
that floor. The same was in violation of the directions in Exts.P3 and<\/p>\n
P4 judgments. Respondents 4 and 5 also started construction of a<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.15458\/05                   – 4 –<\/span><\/p>\n
cellar room in front of their building without leaving any open space<\/p>\n
on the southern side. The said room was constructed using the 1st<\/p>\n
petitioner’s boundary wall in between the two properties as one wall.<\/p>\n
Being satisfied the genuineness of the compliant submitted before the<\/p>\n
2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P6 memo dated<\/p>\n
26.11.2002 to respondents 4 and 5 for stopping the work. Since no<\/p>\n
follow up action was taken pursuant to Ext.P6, the work was<\/p>\n
continued and completed. The 1st petitioner filed O.P.No.4703 of 2003<\/p>\n
before this court and that O.P. was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment<\/p>\n
in which in view of the directions already issued in Ext.P4, this court<\/p>\n
did not issue further directions. Considering Exts.P4 and P7, Ext.P8<\/p>\n
notice dated 8.10.2003 was issued by the Corporation to respondents<\/p>\n
4 and 5 directing them to remove the three unauthorised<\/p>\n
constructions, namely, (1) 60 C.M. extension on the rear of the 1st<\/p>\n
floor (2) Cellar on front and (3) Well on the rear side. Ext.P8 also<\/p>\n
informed respondents 4 and 5 about the rejection of their application<\/p>\n
for regularisation of the unauthorised constructions. In continuation<\/p>\n
of Ext.P8, Ext.P9 provisional order dated 10.9.2003 was issued by the<\/p>\n
Corporation to respondents 4 and 5. Against Ext.P9 without making<\/p>\n
the petitioners parties, the 5th respondent preferred appeal to the<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.15458\/05                    – 5 –<\/span><\/p>\n
Government of Kerala. The 2nd petitioner got herself impleaded in<\/p>\n
that appeal and this court under Ext.P10 judgment directed the<\/p>\n
Government to transfer the appeal against Ext.P8 to the third<\/p>\n
respondent-Tribunal and directed further to maintain status quo as<\/p>\n
obtaining on 23.9.2004. Respondents 4 and 5 proceeded with the<\/p>\n
unauthorised constructions and completed the same and also<\/p>\n
converted the residential building as a commercial building as<\/p>\n
proposed, inducted tenants into the same and at that juncture<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.29570 of 2004 was filed by the 1st petitioner. This court<\/p>\n
disposed of that Writ Petition by Ext.P11 judgment. Under Ext.P11 it<\/p>\n
was directed that the 5th respondent shall seek clarification from the<\/p>\n
Tribunal and proceed only in accordance with the same. Against<\/p>\n
Ext.P11, R.P.No.234 of 2005 has been filed by respondents 4 and 5.<\/p>\n
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by Ext.P12 order on 5.3.2005.<\/p>\n
The appeal was allowed setting aside Ext.P8 and directing the<\/p>\n
Corporation (1) to make a joint inspection with the Town Planner (2)<\/p>\n
to consider the possibility of regularisation of violations, if any, and<\/p>\n
(3) to initiate action for violation if regularisation is not permissible.<\/p>\n
The petitioners submit that Ext.P12 is most arbitrary, unreasonable,<\/p>\n
unjust and beyond the jurisdiction of the third respondent since the<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.15458\/05                     – 6 –<\/span><\/p>\n
action of respondents 4 and 5 actually amounted to contempt of this<\/p>\n
court’s judgments Exts.P10 and P11 and they submit that the Writ<\/p>\n
Petition is filed without prejudice to initiation of proceedings under the<\/p>\n
Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioners point out that C.C.C.No.1100<\/p>\n
of 2003 filed by the 2nd petitioner against the Secretary of the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent-Corporation complaining of disobedience to Ext.P4 was<\/p>\n
closed accepting the statement of the Secretary of the Corporation<\/p>\n
that the unauthorised constructions have been removed. But actually<\/p>\n
the unauthorised constructions even now remain and the third floor of<\/p>\n
the building is completed on the unauthorised beam. Ext.P13<\/p>\n
produced along with the Writ Petition is copy of the statement filed by<\/p>\n
the Corporation in Ext.P12 case. Ext.P14 is copy of the written<\/p>\n
statement filed by the petitioners who were additional respondents 2<\/p>\n
and 3 in Ext.P12 case. Pursuant to the directions in Ext.P12, the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent heard the petitioners and issued Ext.P15 order dated<\/p>\n
29.4.2005. Under Ext.P15 it has been found by the Corporation that<\/p>\n
(1) deviation from the permit and plan on the rear side of the building<\/p>\n
of respondents 4 and 5 does not violate Rule 24(4) of the Rules as<\/p>\n
the building is only 7 meters height (2) the well on the rear is in<\/p>\n
violation of the Rule and it is to be filled up (3) the cellar (bridge) in<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.15458\/05                   – 7 –<\/span><\/p>\n
the front is to be shifted to a distance of 60 C.M. away from the<\/p>\n
property of the 1st petitioner and (4) regularisation will be considered<\/p>\n
on getting exemption from the Government in the matter of<\/p>\n
conversion of use. The petitioners submit that Ext.P15 is not in<\/p>\n
accordance with the directions in Ext.P12 and the Rules and Ext.P15<\/p>\n
is also liable to be quashed. Impugning Exts.P5, P12 and P15 on<\/p>\n
various grounds apart from seeking quashment of Exts.P5, P12 and<\/p>\n
P15 the petitioners seek the following reliefs also:<\/p>\n
1. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2, 4 and 5 to<\/p>\n
demolish the unauthorised structures as directed in Exts.P8 and P9.<\/p>\n
2. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2, 4 and 5 to<\/p>\n
demolish the third floor of the building of respondents 4 and 5<\/p>\n
constructed on the strength of Ext.P5 and also to fill up the well on<\/p>\n
the rear and permanently restore the site to its original position.<\/p>\n
3. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent not to<\/p>\n
regularise the unauthorised constructions made by respondents 4 and<\/p>\n
5 as directed in Exts.P12 and P15.\n<\/p>\n
4. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 6th respondent not to<\/p>\n
give exemption to the building constructed as per Exts.P2 and P5<\/p>\n
from the zonal restrictions for use.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.15458\/05                     – 8 –<\/span><\/p>\n
      3. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-Corporation their Standing<\/p>\n
Counsel filed a statement on 30th June, 2005. It is submitted therein<\/p>\n
that in compliance with Ext.P12 order a hearing was conducted on<\/p>\n
6.4.2005 and thereafter with the help of the Town Planning Officer<\/p>\n
inspected the site on 16.4.2005 and noted the following violations of<\/p>\n
the plan and permit as well as         Building Rules in the matter of<\/p>\n
construction of the building:\n<\/p>\n
1. The bridge access provided in the building is constructed without<\/p>\n
any prior sanction from the Corporation and the same is constructed<\/p>\n
at a distance of 25 c.m. from the boundary of the petitioners whereas<\/p>\n
the Rules mandate that the same should be 60 c.m.\n<\/p>\n
2. The rear side of the cellar portion has 1.50 metre open space<\/p>\n
which is sufficient as per the Building Rules. But in the ground floor as<\/p>\n
well as the first floor there is 75 c.m. sunshade projection which is in<\/p>\n
violation of rules.\n<\/p>\n
3. Occupancy Certificate was issued to the cellar and ground floor of<\/p>\n
the building as it is in conformity with the approved plan. At that time<\/p>\n
respondents 4 and 5 had fully covered the well on the rear side with<\/p>\n
slab and after obtaining occupancy certificate the slab covering the<\/p>\n
well was removed and it is now found to be open. As per<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.15458\/05                   – 9 –<\/span><\/p>\n
K.M.B.R.1999 well can be dug at an average of 1.50 metres from the<\/p>\n
boundary. But in the instant case the well provided on the rear side is<\/p>\n
only 60 c.m. from the boundary which is in violation of rules.<\/p>\n
It is further stated   that considering the directions in Ext.P12 to<\/p>\n
explore the possibility of regularisation of deviation or violation, if<\/p>\n
any, found on inspection as per Rule 143 of the K.M.B.R. Ext.P15<\/p>\n
order has been passed directing respondents 4 and 5 to comply with<\/p>\n
certain conditions for regularising unauthorised constructions. The<\/p>\n
conditions are:\n<\/p>\n
a) The bridge constructed by respondents 4 and 5 at a distance of 25<\/p>\n
c.m. has to be 35 c.m. more so that there will be a distance of 60<\/p>\n
c.m. from the petitioners boundary to be inconformity with Rule 24 of<\/p>\n
the K.M.B.R.\n<\/p>\n
b) The projection of 80 c.m. in the ground floor and the first floor<\/p>\n
satisfies the K.M.B.R. This is because for buildings having height lupto<\/p>\n
7 metres as per the proviso to Rule 24(4) permit can be granted if<\/p>\n
the distance from the boundary is 75 c.m. on condition that there is<\/p>\n
no opening such as doors and windows on that side. For granting<\/p>\n
permits under such circumstances, even the consent of the nearest<\/p>\n
land owner is not necessary.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.15458\/05                   – 10 –<\/span><\/p>\n
c) The well violates the K.M.B.R. and has to be filled up and closed<\/p>\n
permanently.\n<\/p>\n
(d) Since the respondents building is a commercial building which has<\/p>\n
been constructed in a residential zone as per the approved master<\/p>\n
plan, construction can be regularised only on obtaining zonal<\/p>\n
exemption from the Government. If respondents 4 and 5 do not<\/p>\n
produce zonal exemption within the stipulated period of 45 days, the<\/p>\n
constructions will be considered as unauthorised and appropriate<\/p>\n
action will be taken under the provisions of the K.M.Act.<\/p>\n
      4. Respondents 4 and 5 has filed a counter affidavit wherein it<\/p>\n
is contended that when constructions were taken up on the strength<\/p>\n
of Ext.P2 permit there were certain deviations and therefore fresh<\/p>\n
building permit was applied for by submitting revised plan and it was<\/p>\n
accordingly that Ext.P5 permit was issued. However construction of<\/p>\n
the building is completed and door numbers are also assigned on the<\/p>\n
strength of Ext.P5. Since their property is lying in a depth of more<\/p>\n
than 3 metres from the abutting road             after completion of<\/p>\n
construction of the building, respondents 4 and 5 constructed an open<\/p>\n
ramp as permitted in the K.M.B.R. for having access from the road.<\/p>\n
The petitioners who are enimical       towards respondents 4 and 5<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.15458\/05                    – 11 –<\/span><\/p>\n
lodged a number of false complaints and        the Corporation issued<\/p>\n
notices to respondents 4 and 5 and they have filed an application for<\/p>\n
regularisation of the constructions including the open ramp.<\/p>\n
Regularisation application was not favourably considered by the<\/p>\n
Corporation. Respondents 4 and 5 preferred appeal to the<\/p>\n
Government which was transferred to the Tribunal after the Tribunal<\/p>\n
was constituted. The Tribunal after considering the entire materials<\/p>\n
passed Ext.P12 order issuing various directions. In compliance with<\/p>\n
Ext.P12, the 2nd respondent considered the matter after hearing both<\/p>\n
sides and passed Ext.P15 order directing respondents 4 and 5 to<\/p>\n
dismantle 35 c.m. portion of the open ramp and to close down the<\/p>\n
well on the rear side of the building and decided to regularise the<\/p>\n
construction on production of zonal exemption from the Government.<\/p>\n
It is further stated that though the building was originally intended for<\/p>\n
use as a residential house because of the various hostile actions of<\/p>\n
the petitioners, respondents 4 and 5 became constrained to let out<\/p>\n
the building for commercial purposes to the tenants. This is why the<\/p>\n
Corporation directed the respondents 4 and 5 to obtain zoning<\/p>\n
exemption from the Government. Ext.R4(c) is the representation<\/p>\n
submitted before the Government seeking zonal exemption. The<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.15458\/05                   – 12 –<\/span><\/p>\n
matter is pending consideration before the Government. The counter<\/p>\n
affidavit claims that respondents 4 and 5 have already complied with<\/p>\n
the order and dismantled 35 c.m. portion of the ramp and<\/p>\n
permanently closed down the well in the rear side of the building in<\/p>\n
compliance with Ext.P15 order of the 2nd respondent. This fact was<\/p>\n
intimated to the 2nd respondent on 8.6.2005 vide Ext.R1(a) letter<\/p>\n
and Ext.R1(b) is copy of the acknowledgement card issued by the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
      5. In answer to the statement filed by the Corporation and the<\/p>\n
counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 and 5, the petitioners has<\/p>\n
filed a reply affidavit on 2.8.2005. It is contended therein that the<\/p>\n
crucial facts raised by the petitioners and positions of law averred in<\/p>\n
the Writ Petition are not answered either by the Corporation or by the<\/p>\n
party respondents. The construction which is described as a bridge<\/p>\n
access is not a bridge or a ramp, rather the same is a building and<\/p>\n
therefore an open space of 2 metres should have been left. The<\/p>\n
direction that only 60 c.m. is to be left is a wrong direction. It is then<\/p>\n
contended that the height of the building is more than 9 metres and<\/p>\n
therefore the open space at the rear should have been 2 metres. No<\/p>\n
projection is also permissible. It is further contended that the third<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.15458\/05                   – 13 –<\/span><\/p>\n
floor of the building is an unauthorised construction even on the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent’s earlier pleadings in Ext.P12 case and Exts.P8 and P9.<\/p>\n
The occupancy certificate and Corporation building number has been<\/p>\n
given in violation of the rules and against the directions given by this<\/p>\n
court. The reply affidavit denies the allegation of hostile attitude from<\/p>\n
their side. The respondents converted the residential building into a<\/p>\n
commercial building in violaltion of the rules and they let it out to<\/p>\n
various tenants for commercial purposes in violation of the directions<\/p>\n
in Exts.P10 and P11 judgments of this court. The action of<\/p>\n
respondents 2 to 4 amounts to contempt of court.\n<\/p>\n
      6. On 18.11.2005 this court directed the Secretary of the<\/p>\n
Corporation to file an affidavit regarding the height of the building in<\/p>\n
question and directed respondents 4 and 5 to make available copy of<\/p>\n
the plan. Pursuant to that direction the Secretary of the Corporation<\/p>\n
has filed an affidavit on 6.12.2005. It is stated therein that as per the<\/p>\n
site inspection made it is found that the height of the building in<\/p>\n
question is six metres from the central line of the road. It is further<\/p>\n
stated in the affidavit that the height of the building is defined under<\/p>\n
Rule 2(aq) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and the<\/p>\n
measurement of the height of the building was taken in accordance<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.15458\/05                   – 14 –<\/span><\/p>\n
with the rules.\n<\/p>\n
       6. The petitioners have filed an additional reply affidavit on<\/p>\n
13.12.2005. It is pointed out therein that this court directed the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent to produce the two plans approved by the Corporation in<\/p>\n
respect of the building in question and to file an affidavit giving height<\/p>\n
of the building. The 2nd respondent did not file the approved plans.<\/p>\n
The approved plan will show the height of the building. The additional<\/p>\n
reply affidavit states that respondents 2, 4 and 5 do not state the real<\/p>\n
height of the building. They only say that the height of the building<\/p>\n
from the central line of the road is six metres and that is relevant in<\/p>\n
accordance with Rule 2(aq) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules.<\/p>\n
It is contended that Rule Rule 2(aq) does not apply to the facts of the<\/p>\n
case as this building has a ground contiguous to it and the vertical<\/p>\n
height from the ground is what is material. The reall height is<\/p>\n
purposely suppressed by respondents 2, 4 and 5. The non-production<\/p>\n
of the approved plan is deliberate. It is then contended that there is<\/p>\n
no street adjacent to the disputed building. There is an old building<\/p>\n
with several rooms in between the building of respondents 4 and 5<\/p>\n
and the public road. Ext.P16 produced along with the additional reply<\/p>\n
affidavit is copy of the report submitted by the Advocate<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.15458\/05                   – 15 –<\/span><\/p>\n
Commissioner in Ext.P4 case. It is submitted that in Ext.P16 the<\/p>\n
Commissioner has reported that the height of the building is is 10.26<\/p>\n
metres. Ext.P17 is copy of the approved plan in respect of Ext.P2<\/p>\n
permit and Ext.P18 is the copy of the approved plan in respect of<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 permit. Going by Ext.P17 the height of the building is more<\/p>\n
than 7 metres. In Ext.P18 the height of the building is more than 9<\/p>\n
metres. Over and above      height in the approved plan, there is a<\/p>\n
further stair case with height of two metres. Thus the total height will<\/p>\n
be more than 11 metres.\n<\/p>\n
      7. I have heard the submissions of Mr.N.Sukumaran, counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioner, Mr.M.Sreekumar, counsel for respondents 4 and 5,<\/p>\n
Mr.K.A.Jaleel,   Standing   Counsel   for the   1st  respondent    and<\/p>\n
Mr.N.Nandakumara Menon, Standing Counsel for the second<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n
      8. Learned counsel have addressed me elaborately on the basis<\/p>\n
of the respective pleadings and my attention was drawn to the<\/p>\n
documents placed on record to the extent they support the respective<\/p>\n
contentions.\n<\/p>\n
      9. I do not however propose to decide the various issues which<\/p>\n
have arisen between the parties since it is reported by the<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.15458\/05                   – 16 –<\/span><\/p>\n
Government Pleader that the Government after considering the<\/p>\n
application dated 4.5.2005 submitted by the 4th respondent seeking<\/p>\n
zonal exemption for the constructions has rejected the same, copy of<\/p>\n
the Government Order No.33129\/A2\/05 dated 17.8.2005 issued by<\/p>\n
the Government in that regard was made available for my perusal.<\/p>\n
According to me, since the Government has rejected the application<\/p>\n
for zoning exemption, it is not necessary that this court decides the<\/p>\n
controversy as to what was the height of the building in question.<\/p>\n
Now that the Government has rejected the application for zoning<\/p>\n
exemption, the Corporation will take appropriate action treating the<\/p>\n
building put up by the 4th respondent as an unauthorised building.<\/p>\n
Necessary action will be taken by the Corporation in this regard<\/p>\n
within two months of receiving copy of the judgment. Copy of the<\/p>\n
Government Order dated 17.8.2005 is annexed to this judgment.<\/p>\n
      The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.<\/p>\n
srd                                 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE\n\nW.P.C.No.15458\/05    - 17 -<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court J.Sasikumari Amma vs Trivandrum Development … on 11 May, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 15458 of 2005(M) 1. J.SASIKUMARI AMMA, … Petitioner 2. L.S.BEENA, DO.DO.DO. Vs 1. TRIVANDRUM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, … Respondent 2. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 3. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT 4. NOUSHAD, S\/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64456","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJ.Sasikumari Amma vs Trivandrum Development ... on 11 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"J.Sasikumari Amma vs Trivandrum Development ... on 11 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-05T00:56:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"J.Sasikumari Amma vs Trivandrum Development … on 11 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-05T00:56:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3470,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007\",\"name\":\"J.Sasikumari Amma vs Trivandrum Development ... on 11 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-05T00:56:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"J.Sasikumari Amma vs Trivandrum Development … on 11 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"J.Sasikumari Amma vs Trivandrum Development ... on 11 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"J.Sasikumari Amma vs Trivandrum Development ... on 11 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-05T00:56:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"J.Sasikumari Amma vs Trivandrum Development … on 11 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-05T00:56:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007"},"wordCount":3470,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007","name":"J.Sasikumari Amma vs Trivandrum Development ... on 11 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-05T00:56:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-sasikumari-amma-vs-trivandrum-development-on-11-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"J.Sasikumari Amma vs Trivandrum Development … on 11 May, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64456","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64456"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64456\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64456"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}