V.Roshan Ranjith vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 14865 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
     THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 6271 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          V.ROSHAN RANJITH
          AGED 42 YEARS
          S/O RANJITH BHASKARAN, ROSHNI HOUSE, CHETTIKKULAM,
          ELATHOOR VILLAGE, CALICUT-673 303.

          BY ADVS.
          PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
          SHRI. HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI
          SMT.RAJI S.
          SHRI.JOMON J. MALIEKAL



RESPONDENTS:

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

    2     KOZHIKODE CORPORATION,
          MANNANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          KOZHIKODE-673 032.

    3     THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER,
          KOZHIKODE REGION, KUDFC BUILDING, CHAKKORATHUKULAM WEST
          HILL, KOZHIKODE-673 005.

          BY ADV SHRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC, KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL
          CORPORATION

          BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER:SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                    2
WP(C) NO. 6271 OF 2021




                            JUDGMENT

The request of the petitioner for change of occupancy

of the building constructed by him in terms of Ext.P2

building permit, was rejected by the 2nd respondent

Corporation, relying upon a DTP Scheme. Change of

occupancy sought for was from, "residential" to

"commercial". As per the DTP Scheme, the area where the

building is situated is a residential zone.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

also the learned Standing Counsel.

3. It is not disputed that the DTP Scheme relied on

by the Corporation is only a draft scheme which was

prepared years back. The petitioner's contention that

numerous commercial buildings have come up in the

locality could not be disputed by the Corporation. One K. K.

Kuttan, who is the adjacent property owner, was refused

permission for construction of a shopping complex in his

property. He approached this Court in W.P.

(C).No.8651/2018. This Court, as per Ext.P7 judgment, took

note of the fact that the draft scheme relied on by the

WP(C) NO. 6271 OF 2021

Corporation has become obsolete and directed

reconsideration of his application. According to the

petitioner, pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the said

Kuttan was granted permission for construction of

shopping complex.

4. Facts being so, the application of the petitioner is

liable to be considered dehors the DTP Scheme referred to

by the 2nd respondent.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing

the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application

dated 03/12/2020 for change of occupancy, dehors the DTP

Scheme referred to in Ext.P6. Let orders be passed as

expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

rsr

WP(C) NO. 6271 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6271/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX FOR THE YEAR 2020-21

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO TP 11/123884/2015 DATED 17.2.2016

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER AND HIS SIBLINGS

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHONOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PETITIONERS BUILDING ALONG WITH SURROUNDING BUILDINGS

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 3.12.2020

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CORPORATION DATED 22.1.2021

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.4.2016 IN WPC 8651/2018