The Malappuram Service ... vs Malappuram Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 17541 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
     THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 4TH BHADRA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 16232 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          THE MALAPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F.1829
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POST BOX NO 6, UPHILL,
          MALAPPURAM-676 505.

          BY ADVS.
          ABDUL JAWAD K.
          A.GRANCY JOSE


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          OFFICE OF THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY,
          MALAPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 505.

    2     THE SECRETARY
          MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, OFFICE OF THE MALAPPURAM
          MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 505.

          SRI. E.S.M. KABEER-S.C.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 16232 OF 2021

                                         2




                                 JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

"(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to reconsider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner and to pass orders thereon de hors the objections stated in Ext.P3 and to grant building permit as sought for."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

standing counsel appearing for the Malappuram Municipality.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner-bank owns 31.31 Ares of garden land in Sy.No.617/4-5 of

Malappuram Village. It is submitted that as per the DTP Scheme of 1990-

2010 of the 1st respondent Municipality, the area had been earmarked as

a residential area. It is submitted that the scheme has expired in 2010

and thereafter, several constructions of commercial nature have been

effected in the area on the strength of Building permits granted by the

respondents and therefore the scheme has evidently fallen into

redundancy. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner WP(C) NO. 16232 OF 2021

that the request made by the petitioner for construction of a commercial

building has been rejected by Ext.P3 on the sole ground that the area is

earmarked in the DTP Scheme as a residential area. The learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that the said finding is completely

unsupported in view of the fact that the Scheme has become redundant

and also since building permits have been granted for commercial

buildings in the area and even adjacent to the property in which the

petitioner proposes to carry out the construction.

4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Municipality

submits that it is only because the area was earmarked as a residential

area in the DTP Scheme that the application preferred by the petitioner

had been rejected by the Municipality. It is submitted that the issue can

be reconsidered taking note of the contentions of the petitioner with

regard to the existence of commercial buildings in the locality and the

contention that the DTP Scheme is no longer operational and has

become obsolete.

5. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I am of

the opinion that in view of Ext.P2 site plan produced by the petitioner as

well as the contentions raised in the writ petition, the application WP(C) NO. 16232 OF 2021

preferred by the petitioner for building permit to construct a

commercial building requires reconsideration. The specific contention of

the petitioner that several building permits have been granted for

construction of commercial buildings in the locality after the year 2010,

shall be specifically taken note of while considering the application

afresh.

6. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P3 is set aside. There will be a

direction to the respondents to take up the application preferred by the

petitioner for building permit and to consider it afresh, taking note of

Ext.P2 and the contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to the

existence of commercial buildings in the locality. Necessary shall be

done by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE NP WP(C) NO. 16232 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16232/2021

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1(A) TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Exhibit P1(A) TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE BUILDINGS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LOCATION PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.12.2019 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL