Hebron Properties Private Ltd vs Maradu Municipality
2022 Latest Caselaw 5699 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
        FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 4531 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

    1      M/S. HEBRON PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD
           MARADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN CODE -682 304
           REPRESENTED BY IT'S DIRECTOR
           DEAN JAMES MATHEW

    2      M/S. AMV INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED
           DOOR NO.11/585 - F, 4TH FLOOR ,
           AMV TOWER, KUNDANOOR JUNCTION,
           MARADU P.O, KOCHI-682 304
           REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
           ANIL SHARMA

           BY ADV NAVEEN THOMAS


RESPONDENTS:

    1      MARADU MUNICIPALITY
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
           KRL RD, KUNDANNOOR, MARADU,
           ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682 304

    2      DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER
           LSGD PLANNING, DPC SECRETARIAT BUILDING,
           CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD,
           ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030

           BY ADV RAJAN T R


           SRI.B.S. SYAMANTHAK, GP.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 4531 OF 2022
                                      2




                             T.R.RAVI, J.
                    ----------------------------------------
                      WP(C) NO.4531 OF 2022
                   -------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 27th .day of May, 2022

                            JUDGMENT

The writ petition has been filed praying to quash Ext.P4 and

for a direction to the 1st respondent to grant renewal of Ext.P1

building permit considering Exts.P3 and Ext.P5 to Ext.P8. The

petitioners were granted Ext.P1 revised building permit on

11.06.2014. They had applied for renewal of the permit and the

application has been rejected as per Ext.P4. The reason stated is

that the property is situated in an industrial area and only

construction up to 300 square meters can be permitted. It is also

stated that the property is shown as converted land in the Data

Bank and the petitioners have to produce orders permitting user

of the land for other purposes.

2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit reiterating

the reasons stated in Ext.P4 order. It is stated that the revised

permit was issued on 08.02.2018 renewing the permit up to

10.06.2020 and that a stop memo had been issued on 04.06.2019 WP(C) NO. 4531 OF 2022

for the reason that NOC from the CRZ authority was not

obtained. It is also stated that as per the Kochi City Structural

Plan, the property is situated in an industrial area and that the

property is shown in the Data Bank as converted property. It is

further stated that on site inspection, the property is seen to be

situated in CRZ II area but it is revealed that 63 meters distance

has been left for the construction from the HTL and hence the

property need not be treated as coming under CRZ II. Regarding

the contention that the property is included in the industrial

zone, Ext.P6 order which is issued by the 1 st respondent shows

that the area is surrounded with residential buildings and it was

wrongly zoned. In Ext.P7 judgment, this Court had in similar

situations where the renewal was denied on the ground of zoning

regulations, set aside the order of rejection and directed the

respondents to grant renewal to the petitioners therein, if they

are otherwise entitled. That was a case where contention of the

respondents was that the property was situated in the

agricultural zone. So also in Ext.P3 judgment in WP(C)No.19197

of 2020, this Court had rejected the contention that the property

is included in the agricultural zone and directed renewal of the

building permit. I find considerable force in the contentions put WP(C) NO. 4531 OF 2022

forward by the counsel for the petitioner and I do not find any

reason to take a different view from that taken in the judgments

cited.

3. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 is

quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the

application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of the

property in accordance with law and to grant renewal, if the

petitioner is otherwise entitled. The reason stated in Ext.P4 shall

not be relied on, to reject the application. Necessary orders shall

be issued within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI

JUDGE sn WP(C) NO. 4531 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4531/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED BUILDING PERMIT BEARING NUMBER BA/378/2012-13 DATED 11-06-2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT MARADU MUNICIPALITY.

Exhibit P 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12-01-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.

Exhibit P 3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15-01-2022 MADE BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P 4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27-01-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.

Exhibit P 5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-12-2011 IN THE SAID APPEAL NO.660/2011 ON THE FILE OF TRIBUNAL FOR SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS , TRIVANDRUM.

Exhibit P 6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-05-2012 IN THE BA NO.186/11-12 ON THE FILE OF 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P 7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/12/2021 OF HONOROUABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP (C) NO.16737/2021.

Exhibit P 8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/08/2021 OF HONOROUABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP (C) NO.19197/2020.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit R1(A)           TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ZONING
                        REGULATIONS


                    //TRUE COPY//                  PA TO JUDGE