Kerala High Court
Sujith Kumar vs Kollam Corporation on 11 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021/20TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 35070 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
SUJITH KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI,
THULASI SADANAM, PUTHENTHURA P.O.,
KOLLAM- 691 588.
BY ADVS.
M.KIRANLAL
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KOLLAM CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 691 001.
2 THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE,
KOLLAM-691 001.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, PIN-691 001.
ADDL.4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1
ADDL.5 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1
[ADDL.R4 AND R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
20-11-2019 IN IA 1/2019]
WP(C) No.35070/2018
2
ADDL.6 THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER,
DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICE,
KOLLAM 691 001.
[ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
20-11-2019 IN IA 2/2019]
ADDL.7 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS DIVISION,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM.
ADDL.8 THE DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
REGIONAL OFFICE, TC.86/1036-1,
AMBILY ARCADE, S.N.N.R.A-9, PETTAH P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 021, KERALA.
[ADDL.R7 & R8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
30-11-2020 IN IA 3/20]
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SURYA BINOY
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS, SC
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.35070/2018
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2021
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to
quash Ext.P6 intimation dated 03.09.2016 which rejected the
application for Building Permit submitted by the petitioner
and to direct the 1st respondent to give sanction for the
construction of the first floor, by issuing a Building Permit by
reconsidering Ext.P5 application in accordance with law.
2. The petitioner submits that he had applied for a
Building Permit as the petitioner intended to construct first
floor to his existing building. The petitioner submitted an
application which was rejected by the 1st respondent-
Corporation stating that the construction would affect the
proposed road widening. The petitioner approached the
Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, aggrieved by
the rejection of the Building Permit application. However, the
WP(C) No.35070/2018
Tribunal dismissed the application pointing out that the
Kerala Town Planning and Country Planning Act, 2016 has
overriding effect.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner invoked Section 67 of
the Town Planning and Country Planning Act, 2016 and
issued a purchase notice on the Corporation. However
inspite of the expiry of the statutory period of 60 days, the 1 st
respondent-Corporation has not taken any decision in the
matter.
4. The respondents 1 and 2 appeared through
Standing Counsel and contested the writ petition. The
respondents 1 and 2 submitted that in view of the provisions
contained in the Kerala Town Planning and Country Planning
Act, 2016, application for Building Permit submitted by the
petitioner cannot be entertained. However, on a question put
forth by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel submitted
that permission was granted to another person to construct a
WP(C) No.35070/2018
building in the area, pursuant to a decision taken in the
Adalath conducted by the Minister for Local Self Government
Institutions.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, learned
Government Pleader representing respondents 4 to 6 and
the learned Standing Counsel for additional respondents 7
and 8.
6. When this writ petition came up for hearing today,
the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is given to the 1 st
respondent to consider the application submitted by the
petitioner in accordance with the law laid down by this Court
in the judgments in Abul Hakeem v. Manjeri Municipality
[2018 (1) KLT 1026] and District Town Planner,
Malappuram and others v. Vinod and others [2019(3)
KHC 673].
WP(C) No.35070/2018
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4 application for
building permit submitted by the petitioner in the light of the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in District Town
Planner, Malappuram (supra) and Abul Hakeem (supra). A
decision in this regard shall be taken by the 1st respondent
within a period of two months. It is made clear that this Court
has not pronounced anything on the merits of the case.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ncd/11.08.2021
WP(C) No.35070/2018
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35070/2018
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.723/2015 DATED 07.04.2015.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
22.07.2015.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
10.04.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT UNDER RULE 5(1) AND RULE
144(1) OF THE KERALA MUNICIPALITY
BUILDING RULES, 1999 DATED 19.08.2016.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE
PROPOSED EXTENSION OF BUILDING NO.238
WARD NO.33.
EXHIBIT P6 THE INTIMATION DATED 03.09.2016
REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM
IN APPEAL NO.941/2016.
EXHIBIT P8 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN
APPEAL NUMBER 941/2016 DATED
29.06.2018.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE NOTICE
DATED 13.06.2018.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
CARD.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE INWARD REGISTER OF
TAPAL SECTION OF KOLLAM CORPORATION.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION
RECEIVED UNDER THE RTI ACT DT. 3.7.19.
