Suharabi K. S vs The Kodungallur Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 5369 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

    MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.3781 OF 2021(W)


PETITIONER:

               SUHARABI K. S.
               AGED 64 YEARS
               W/O. MUHAMMED, KODUNGOOKARAN, PALAPETTY, EDAMUTTAM,
               VALAPPAD, EDAMUTTAM, THRISSUR - 680 568.

               BY ADV. SMT.STEFIN THOMAS

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY
               KODUNGALLUR P. O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR - 680 664,
               REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.

      2        THE SECRETARY
               THE KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY, KODUNGALLUR P. O.,
               KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR - 680 664.

               R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                    SATHISH NINAN, J.
          ==================
                W. P. (C) No.3781 of 2021
          ==================
         Dated this the 15th day of February, 2021

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks for a direction for

consideration of his application for building

permit dehors the draft master plan of the first

respondent Municipality.

2. The application for building permit

submitted by the petitioner was not granted by the

Municipality relying on a draft master plan stating

that, sufficient set back as would be required for

widening the PWD road by the side of the property

has not been left.

3. More than two years have elapsed since the

date of publication of the draft master plan; no

acquisition proceedings are initiated so far. In W. P. (C) No.3781 of 2021

similar circumstances, this Court has in District Town

Planner, Malappuram and Others v. Vinod and Others [2019 (3) KHC

673] and Regional Town Planner and Another v. Muhammed Rasheed

and Others [2019 (3) KHC 987] declared that the owner of

the property has the right to make a purchase

proposal under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and

Country Planning Act 2016 and that the municipality

is to consider the application within the statutory

period of sixty days and pass appropriate orders.

If the request is not acceded, then the

petitioner's application for building permit be

considered dehors the draft master plan.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is

disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to

move the purchase proposal (purchase notice) in

terms of Section 67 referred to above, within one W. P. (C) No.3781 of 2021

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment, and the competent authority of the

Municipality shall consider the same and pass

appropriate orders in accordance with law, within

the statutory period. If no orders are passed on

the application within the period or if the

application is rejected, then the petitioner's

application for building permit shall be considered

by the second respondent-Secretary dehors the

master plan, and orders passed thereon within a

period of one month therefrom.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge WP(C).No.3781 OF 2021(W)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25.06.2020 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, LOKAMALESWARAM.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 11.08.2020 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF FEE FOR BUILDING PERMIT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 07.11.2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.29004/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION CITED DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER MALAPPURAM AND OTHERS V. VINOD AND OTHERS (2019 3 KHC 673) OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

-----