Rappai vs Thrissur Corporation
2021 Latest Caselaw 8071 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

 TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                  WP(C).No.34894 OF 2019(J)


PETITIONER/S:

            RAPPAI,
            AGED 71 YEARS,
            S/O.OUSEPH, KALLARAKKAL HOUSE,
            MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR,
            PIN-680006.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.A.R.NIMOD
            SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE

RESPONDENT/S:

     1      THRISSUR CORPORATION,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-680001

     2      ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
            KOORKENCHERY ZONE,
            THRISSUR CORPORATION -680001

     3      STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
            DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,
            SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

            R1&R2 BY SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR
            CORPORATION
            BY SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION     (CIVIL) HAVING     COME UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.03.2021,     THE COURT ON     THE SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.34894 of 2019
                                                    2




                                      W.P.(C)No.34894 of 2019

                               -----------------------------------------------

                                               JUDGMENT

Petitioner holds a land within the limits of the first

respondent Corporation. He preferred an application for building permit

for constructing a commercial building in the said land. The application

has been rejected by the competent authority of the Corporation in

terms of Ext.P1 communication stating that the land of the petitioner

falls within an area earmarked for residential purpose in terms of the

Detailed Town Planning Scheme which is in force. Ext.P1 is under

challenge in the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also

the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

3. On a query from the Court, the learned Standing

Counsel for the Corporation submitted that the DTP Scheme referred to

in Ext.P1 is one framed under the erstwhile master plan and though the

master plan itself has now been revised making the entire area as

residential-cum-commercial zone, the Detailed Town Planning Scheme

is yet to be varied. According to the learned Standing Counsel, it is on

account of the said reason that the petitioner could not be issued the

building permit sought by him.

W.P.(C)No.34894 of 2019

4. If the DTP Scheme referred to in Ext.P1 is one

prepared on the basis of the erstwhile master plan, the same is liable to

be varied in the light of the revision brought about in the master plan.

In so far as it is conceded that the area is a residential-cum- commercial

zone in the revised master plan, I am of the view that the DTP Scheme

which is liable to be varied in tune with the revised master plan cannot

be an impediment in the matter of considering the application preferred

by the petitioner for building permit.

In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed

of directing the Corporation to consider the application of the petitioner

for building permit referred to in Ext.P1 afresh and grant the the

building permit sought by the petitioner, if the same is otherwise in

order. This shall be done within one month.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE rkj W.P.(C)No.34894 of 2019

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF NOTICE OF REJECTION OF PERMIT DATED 21.1.2019

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP 5139/1994

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2001

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2003

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.10.2019