IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 16633 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
RADHA
AGED 67 YEARS
D/O. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA,
POOLAPARAMBU MEETHIL HOUSE, KOZHIKKALKUNNU,
KARUVAMBRAM P.O., MELAKKAM, MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
PIN - 676123
BY ADV K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY
MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
PIN - 676121
2 THE SECRETARY
MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MANJERI P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
PIN - 676121
3 THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER,
CIVIL STATION ROAD, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
PIN - 676505
BY ADVS.
SHRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI), SC, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY
SMT.SURYA BINOY B SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 16633 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2022 The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by denial of Building Permit sought for from the 2 nd respondent. The Building Permit has been declined on the ground that there is a detailed Town Planning Scheme existing and the Building Permit application is not in accordance with the Town Planning Scheme.
2. Therefore, the petitioner resorted to her statutory remedy by forwarding a Purchase Notice, invoking Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act. The petitioner submits that for the time being, the petitioner will be satisfied if the Purchase Notice sent by the petitioner is considered by the competent authority.
3. Standing Counsel entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that if the WP(C) NO. 16633 OF 2022 3 Building Permit application of the petitioner is allowed, it would violate the existing Master Plan. Furthermore, the Municipality is under the process of revising the Master Plan and the proposal for the revised Master Plan framed by the Municipality is under consideration of the District Town Planner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader representing the 3 rd respondent.
5. The petitioner wants to make a building construction. It is evident that the Building Permit application submitted by the petitioner is not in tune with the existing Master Plan. Therefore, the petitioner has invoked her statutory remedy by forwarding a Purchase Notice to respondents 1 and 2. Ext.P4 Notice being of a statutory nature, respondents 1 and 2 are bound to consider the same and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law.
WP(C) NO. 16633 OF 2022 4 In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P4 purchase notice submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, within the statutory period.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk WP(C) NO. 16633 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16633/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, NARUKARA DATED 29-4-2022 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17-1-
2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24-1-
2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 67 OF THE KERALA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT,2016 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL