A.Sheriff vs Corporation Of Kochi
2021 Latest Caselaw 10125 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

    THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.8919 OF 2013(L)


PETITIONERS:

      1        A.SHERIFF
               AGED 42 YEARS
               "DARUL FATHAH", MASJID ROAD, KALOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM
               KOCHI-682 017 REPRESENTED THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY
               HOLDER, P.A.JIHAS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, MANAGING
               DIRECTOR, JEWEL HOMES (P) LTD., KOCHI-682017.

      2        A.S. UWAIS S/O.A.SHERIFF
               "DARUL FATHAH", MASJID ROAD, KALOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM
               KOCHI-682 017 REPRESENTED THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY
               HOLDER, P.A.JIHAS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, MANAGING
               DIRECTOR, JEWEL HOMES (P) LTD., KOCHI-682017.

      3        BASHEER S/O.AHAMMED
               "RAZIYA MANZIL", EDAPALLY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
               KOCHI-682 024, REPRESENTED THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY
               HOLDER, P.A.JIHAS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, MANAGING
               DIRECTOR, JEWEL HOMES (P) LTD., KOCHI-682017.

      4        ABDULLA S/O.HASSANKUTTY
               KAIPPADATH HOUSE, MUTTANOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM
               DISTRICT, KOCHI-682017 REPRESENTED THROUGH POWER OF
               ATTORNEY HOLDER, P.A.JIHAS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,
               MANAGING DIRECTOR, JEWEL HOMES (P) LTD.,
               KOCHI-682017.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.)
               SMT.RAMEENA.P.K.
               SRI.T.U.ZIYAD

RESPONDENTS:

      1        CORPORATION OF KOCHI
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682016

      2        ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
               ZONAL OFFICE, CORPORATION OF KOCHI,
               EDAPPALLY KOCHI-682024.
 WP(C).No.8919 OF 2013(L)          2




      ADDL. STATE OF KERALA
      R3    REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL
            ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -1.

      ADDL. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER
      R4    NEST, TC 14/319, PANJAPPURA JUNCTION,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 33.

      ADDL. THE REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER
      R5    REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, KADAVANTHARA,
            KOCHI -33.

             ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER
             ORDER DATED 29.5.2013 IN I.A.NO.7089/13.

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29-05-2013, THE COURT ON 25-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.8919 OF 2013(L)                   3




                                    JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of March 2021

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exhibit P2

order passed by the Assistant Engineer of the Corporation of Cochin, Zonal

Office, Edappally, by which the building permit application submitted by the

petitioner to construct a residential building was rejected holding that the zone,

in which the construction is sought for, is an industrial zone and it is thus

challenging the illegality and correctness of Exhibit P2 notice declining building

permit, this writ petition is filed.

2. Apparently, this writ petition is pending before this Court without

securing any interim order from the year 2013. This I say because in the year

2016, the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 has come into force,

thereby the issues in respect of categorization, zoning and construction of

buildings are guided by the provisions of the Act, 2016 along with the Kerala

Municipality Act, 1994 and the Rules, 1999. As per section 113 of the Act,

2016, the existing town planning acts are repealed and replaced by the

provisions of the Act, 2016. However, as per sub-section (2) of section 113, the

schemes existing as per the erstwhile Town Planning Acts are protected.

Therefore, necessarily the issue with respect to the zoning etc. are to be

considered as per the provisions of Act, 2016 conjointly read with the

provisions of Act, 1994 and Rules, 1999. I also find from section 50 of Act,

2016 that in respect of zoning done by the Municipality/Corporation, an

aggrieved person is at liberty to seek modification of the plan and the authority

constituted under the said provision is vested with powers to do the same.

3. After going through the pleadings put forth by the petitioner and the

law applicable in regard to the zoning and construction as specified above, the

writ petition is disposed of, leaving open the liberty of the petitioners to

approach the statutory authorities in terms of the provisions of Act, 2016 and if

any such application is filed, I have no reason to think, the authorities

constituted under law will not consider the same in accordance with law.

Sd/-

                                                  SHAJI P.CHALY

smv                                                     JUDGE





                           APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           EXHIBIT-P1 -TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION
                     DATED 24-6-2012 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND
                     RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2           EXHIBIT-P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
                     NO.EYPS/COC/EYP/0270/12 DATED 17-7-2012
                     ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3           EXHIBIT-P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
                     DATED 24-11-2011 IN WPC.NO.13952/2011
                     PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.