C.U. Alikunju vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 11422 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

   THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.1922 OF 2021(M)


PETITIONER:

               C.U. ALIKUNJU,
               AGED 61 YEARS
               S/O.LATE UMMER, CHERUKAPPILLY HOUSE, KAVUMKARA,
               MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN - 686 673.

               BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
               DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
               PIN - 695 001.

      2        THE REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING OFFICER
               CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030.

      3        THE THRIKKAKKARA MUNICIPALITY
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF
               THRIKKAKKARA MUNICIPALITY, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
               PIN - 682 030.

               R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.JAMAL
                  BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                   SATHISH NINAN, J.
          ==================
               W. P. (C) No.1922 of 2021
          ==================
           Dated this the 8th day of April, 2021

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal to

grant building permit sought, for putting up a

commercial building in his property, on the reason

that the property falls under the "Agricultural

Zone" as per the Kochi, Structural Plan. The

recommendation for zonal exemption was rejected.

Noticing that commercial buildings have been put up

in the nearby properties and that there are several

multi-storeyed buildings within the vicinity, the

petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation to the

third respondent Municipality for fresh

consideration of his building permit application

which was filed on 27.01.2017.

2. This Court has, in various judgments in WPC

Nos.9256/2018, 15551/2015, WA 559/2016 noticed that

the structural plan referred to above has either

not been put into operation or it is not being

followed. It has also been noticed that the area in W. P. (C) No.1922 of 2021

question has been developed and that there are

various commercial and residential buildings. This

Court has held that the right of the owner to put

his property to use cannot be denied referring to

such a Town Planning Scheme.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the third respondent to consider the

petitioner's request made in Ext.P8 with reference

to his building permit application, and pass orders

thereon.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge WP(C).No.1922 OF 2021(M)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DT.

15/6/2020 OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KAKKANAD.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DT.

2/11/2016 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAKKANAD.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT.

17/10/2016 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAKKANAD.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SR.25/7/2017 FORWARDED BY THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNING OFFICER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 2/2/2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 26/10/2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.9256/2018.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 26/10/2016 IN W.A.NO.559/2016.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.

31/12/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

-----