Noushad vs *(Office Of The Corporation Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 199 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
         TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943
                         W.P.(C) NO.26732 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

              NOUSHAD,
              AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED UNNI,
              KARIYAT HOUSE,
              PADOOR P.O., THRISSUR-680 524.

              BY ADVS.
              A.BALAGOPALAN
              A.RAJAGOPALAN
              M.N.MANMADAN
              M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED
              SOJO J.KALLIDUKIL
              P.SEENA
              SREEDASS K P


RESPONDENTS:

     1        *(OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION OF THRISSUR
              M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY)

              * NAME OF 1ST RESPONDENT CORRECTED

              THE NAME OF 1ST RESPONDENT STANDS CORRECTED AS
              "CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
              M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR -680 001" INSTEAD OF 'OFFICE OF THE
              CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR- 680 001,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY', AS PER ORDER DATED
              09.12.2021 IN I.A.NO.1/2021 IN W.P.(C)NO.26732/2021.

     2        M/S.MANUALSONS HOUSING DEVELOPING COMPANY (P) LTD.,
              M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001.

              BY ADV.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) NO.26732 OF 2021
                                 -2-

                            JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking direction to the 1 st

respondent to grant building permit to the petitioner

notwithstanding the failure to comply with the conditions

provided in Ext.P1 by the developer. A challenge is also made to

Ext.P6, to the extent it rejects the application for building

permit.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the issue stands covered by Ext.P5 judgment of this Court dated

26.03.2014 and that identically situated persons had been

granted building permit on the strength of the judgment.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondent Corporation submits that the development permit

has been granted to the developer on specific conditions as are

available in Ext.P1. It is submitted that the developer admittedly

did not comply with the said conditions and that the application

submitted by the petitioner for building permit was not

considered only in view of the fact that the conditions in the

development permit were not complied with. It is submitted that W.P.(C) NO.26732 OF 2021

the period of development permit had also expired long ago.

4. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and

having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that the

petitioner is the owner of an individual plot of land. Ext.P5 is the

judgment of this Court where the contentions of the Corporation

had been considered and it was held that the individual owners

of the properties cannot be penalized for the alleged failure of

the developer to comply with the conditions in the development

permit by the developer. This Court held that the applications

submitted by the individual owners for building permit are liable

to be considered in accordance with law.

5. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion

that the rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner

for building permit on the ground that the developer had not

complied with the conditions in the development permit is not

sustainable.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondents to

take up the application submitted by the petitioner for building

permit and to consider and pass orders on the same in

accordance with law, taking specific note of the provisions of the W.P.(C) NO.26732 OF 2021

building rules, within a period of one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE bpr W.P.(C) NO.26732 OF 2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN WITH LAYOUT AND CONDITIONS OF GREEN FIELD RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT SCHEME.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND UTILIZATION ORDER DATED 26.09.1994 IN RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND UTILIZATION ORDER DATED 02.10.1994 IN RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF BUILDING NUMBERS ALREADY OCCUPIED BY THE ALLOTTEES.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2014 IN W.P.(C) NO.7231/2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION DATED 22.03.2021 TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF SANCTION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION TO MR.V.T.VARUNNY AND REENAVARUNNY ON 19.01.2013.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT PASSED IN W.P.(C) NO.14728/2011 DATED 31.07.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.03.2021.