N.P Hamza vs The Corporation Engineer/ Town ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5802 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
                     WP(C) NO. 15124 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          N.P HAMZA
          AGED 69 YEARS
          NALAKATH PADUVINGAL HOUSE,
          EDAKKARA P.O, PUNNAYUR VILLAGE
          CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR - 680518.

          BY ADVS.
          GEORGE RENOY
          C.K.PREM RAJ


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE CORPORATION ENGINEER/
          TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, THRISSUR
          THRISSUR CORPORATION,
          CORPORATION OFFICE,
          THRISSUR - 680001.

    2     THRISSUR CORPORATION
          REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
          CORPORATION OFFICE,
          THRISSUR - 680001.

          BY ADV SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.15124 of 2023
                                 2




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of May, 2023

The petitioner, who jointly owns ancestral property and is

residing in a house built on the said property, is before this Court

seeking to direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 application

and to regularize the construction.

2. The petitioner states that due to leakage in the roof and

to the shade of the house, the petitioner constructed a truss work

on the roof of his residential building. The 1 st respondent on

07.04.2023, directed the petitioner to demolish the truss roof.

According to the petitioner, the said order came on the basis of

certain complaints made by others.

3. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner has a right to get the construction regularized by the

Corporation and has therefore submitted Ext.P2 application.

Unless, Ext.P2 application is considered by the Corporation and W.P.(C) No.15124 of 2023

decision is taken thereon, the petitioner will be put to untold

hardship and loss.

4. The Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of

the respondents and resisted the writ petition. Standing Counsel

denied all the allegations made by the petitioner. However, on

behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that if the petitioner has

filed Ext.P2 application and if the same is pending, it can be

considered by the respondents in accordance with law.

In view of the facts as stated above, the writ petition is

disposed of directing the competent among respondents 1 and 2

to consider Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner and take

appropriate decision thereon within a period of two months. Any

proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 will stand deferred till a decision is

taken by the respondents on Ext.P2.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams W.P.(C) No.15124 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15124/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2023 OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 13.04.2023