Shihab vs The Malappuram Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 7585 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                  WP(C).No.5619 OF 2021(B)


PETITIONER/S:

            SHIHAB,
            AGED 34 YEARS, S/O CHEKUTTY,
            VELLAKKANAKATH, KAREKKAD,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 553.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.ABDUL JAWAD K.
            SMT.A.GRANCY JOSE

RESPONDENT/S:

     1      THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
            MALAPPURAM-676 505.

     2      THE SECRETARY,
            MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY,
            MALAPPURAM-676 505.

             BY SRI.E.S.M.KABEER, STANDING COUNSEL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP         FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME         DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.5619 of 2021
                                                  2




                                   W.P.(C)No.5619 of 2021
                            -----------------------------------------------


                                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner holds, along with others, a property

measuring 31.75 cents in Malappuram Village in Malappuram District.

The property of the petitioner is situated within the limits of the first

respondent Municipality. The petitioner proposes to put up a

commercial building in the said property. An application preferred by

the petitioner for building permit in this regard has been rejected by

the Municipality in terms of Ext.P1 order. In Ext.P1 order, it is stated

that since the land of the petitioner is proposed to be acquired for

widening the abutting road in terms of the sanctioned development

plan of the Municipality, the application cannot be considered. It is

stated by the petitioner that he has, therefore, issued Ext.P2

purchase notice to the Municipality under Section 67(1) of the Kerala

Town and Country Planning Act, 2016. It is stated that Ext.P2

purchase notice has been received in the office of the Municipality on

17.12.2020. The writ petition is instituted thereupon, seeking

directions to the second respondent to reconsider the application

submitted by the petitioner for building permit, alleging that the

Municipality will not consider Ext.P2 purchase notice.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the

learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. W.P.(C)No.5619 of 2021

3. It is now trite that when an area becomes compulsorily

acquirable under the Development Plan, the owner of the land gets a

corresponding right to issue a purchase notice under Section 67 of

the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act and that if the same is

rejected or not considered by the Municipality within 60 days, then

the party gets a right to make use of the property, and the

Municipality cannot thereafter refuse the building permit applied for

by the party on the premise that the land is proposed to be acquired

for any purpose [See Thalassery Municipality v. Puthalath

Balakrishnan, 2019 (3) KLT 154 and Abul Hakeem v. Manjeri

Municipality, 2018 (1) KLT 1026].

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the second respondent to grant the building permit applied

for by the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 order, if there was no decision

on Ext.P2 purchase notice on or before 17.2.2021 and if the

application for building permit submitted by the petitioner is

otherwise in order.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

rkj W.P.(C)No.5619 of 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO BA 208/20-21 DATED 11.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE NOTICE DATED 16.12.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.3.2020 IN WP(C)NO 6768/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT