Kerala High Court
Jeeja.T.K vs The Kannur Municipal Corporation on 11 September, 2024
2024:KER:70584
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 11 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH
BHADRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 6335 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
JEEJA.T.K.
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O.A.N.JAYARAJAN, AMBADI, PODIKUNDU, KOTTALI
ROAD, P.O.PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR - 4.
BY ADV SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
KANNUR-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, 2ND FLOOR,
SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANDANCAUD, TRIVANDRUM - 695
001.
3 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
W.P.(C) No.6335 of 2019
2024:KER:70584
-2-
SMT.S.AMBILY
SMT.NAMITHA NAMBIAR
SMT.M.MEENA JOHN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.6335 of 2019
2024:KER:70584
-3-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2024
The petitioner was in possession of 3.11 cents of land in
Kannur-I Village within the limits of the first respondent
Corporation, out of which a portion was taken into possession
by the Corporation free of cost for the purpose of widening of
roads. It is pointed out that the balance property in possession
of the petitioner is only to the extent of 2.73 cents.
2. The petitioner submitted an application for a
building permit (commercial) before the 1 st respondent
Corporation. Ext.P3 is the building permit issued by the
Corporation dated 30.11.2007. However, the petitioner points
out that on account of various reasons, the construction was a
bit slow and in 2010, a stop memo at Ex.P5 was issued by the
Corporation informing the petitioner that on account of a DTP
Scheme, the construction is to be stopped.
2024:KER:70584
3. The said action of the Corporation stood challenged
before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions,
Thiruvananthapuram at the instance of the petitioner in Appeal
No.253 of 2010. By Ext.P6 order dated 30.04.2010, learned
Tribunal has allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned
order at Ext.P5 herein.
4. On the basis of the order issued by the Tribunal at
Ext.P6, the petitioner could have continued the construction.
However, the validity of the building permit at Ext.P3 was to
expire by November, 2010.
5. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P13
application dated 22.11.2010, before the Corporation for
renewal of the building permit. The said request was processed
and Ext.P7 notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.03.2013,
informing the petitioner that in the light of the DTP scheme
and a master plan, which are yet to be approved by the
Government, the request for renewal of the building permit
2024:KER:70584
submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered for the time
being. The petitioner has represented her grievances before
the Chief Town Planner/second respondent through Ext.P8 and
ultimately by Ext.P10 dated 05.10.2015, the second
respondent informed that the extension of permit beyond 9
years could be considered only at the hands of the Committee
constituted under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999.
It is challenging the above proceedings, the captioned writ
petition has been filed by the petitioner.
6. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the
first respondent Corporation, essentially relying on certain
complaints filed by a third party against the construction,
received by the Corporation on 03.04.2009, the proceedings of
the Chief Town Planner dated 09.09.2009 with respect to the
DTP Scheme etc. A reply affidavit is also filed on behalf of the
petitioner, producing photographs of the property showing the
lie of the property.
2024:KER:70584
7. I have heard Sri.Abdul Raoof, learned Counsel for
the petitioner and Smt.Meena Mohan, learned Counsel for the
respondents Corporation.
8. Sri.Abdul Raoof, learned Counsel for the petitioner
points out that the action of the Corporation in refusing to
renew the building permit purely on the basis of the proposed
master plan which was approved only in the year 2012 by
which the width of the road was increased to 7 metres from 5
metres, is without any justification. He also pointed out that
the master plan is yet to be implemented by the concerned
authorities. He points out that the claim of the petitioner for
renewal is to be considered with reference to the position that
existed on the date of filing of Ext.P13 renewal application.
9. Smt.Meena John, learned Standing Counsel for the
Corporation, on the other hand, points out that the maximum
period up to which extension can be granted - 10 years as per
the new law is already over. She also points out that the
2024:KER:70584
present writ petition is hit by laches on the part of the
petitioner, after filing the application for renewal during
November, 2010, the petitioner has sought to file the
captioned writ petition only in the year 2019.
10. I have considered the rival contentions as well as
the connected records.
11. The only issue arising for consideration is as to
whether the petitioner is entitled to get his application at
Ext.P13 processed by the Corporation. Ext.P13 application was
admittedly filed on 22.11.2010. It is seen that after three
years on 08.03.2013, the Corporation informed the petitioner
through Ext.P7 that on account of the DTP Scheme/master
plan, which is yet to be approved, the claim for renewal
cannot be considered at present.
12. The petitioner had pointed out his grievances
before the Chief Town Planner and the reply issued by the
Chief Town Planner is at Ex.P10 which is dated 05.10.2015. As
2024:KER:70584
per Ext.P10 dated 05.10.2015 also, the petitioner was
categorically informed that the extension beyond 9 years could
only be considered by the Committee.
13. It is noticed that the petitioner had obtained the
building permit in 2007. Even in 2010, the building
construction could not be finished. The petitioner has given
various reasons for the delay in completion of the
construction. The stop memo issued was also challenged
before the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal was issued
during April 2010. From April 2010 till November, 2010, the
petitioner had not taken any steps for continuing the
construction. By November 2010, noticing that the period as
per the original permit was going to expire, the petitioner had
filed an application for renewal. The said application was
processed and Ext.P7 communication was issued by the
Corporation with reference to the DTP Scheme. The Chief Town
Planner has also issued positive directions as to why the
2024:KER:70584
extension cannot be granted beyond a particular period, in
2015. It is seen that from 2015 onwards, till the filing of this
writ petition, the petitioner has not taken any steps in that
regard.
14. The writ petition also does not contain any
explanation for the delay in taking steps to challenge the
impugned proceedings. In that view of the matter, I do not find
any reason to permit the petitioner to make an application for
renewal of Ext.P3 building permit as sought for in Ext.P13. In
fact, Ext.P13 has already been processed and answer given, as
seen from Ext.P7. The said order dated 08.03.2013 is
challenged only in the year 2019.
In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to
exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, in the case at hand.
In the result, this writ petition would stand dismissed.
After the judgment was pronounced, Sri.Abdul Raoof,
2024:KER:70584
learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner
may be granted liberty to make appropriate changes to the
building plan and make a fresh application for building permit
with the respondent Corporation. Taking into consideration the
above submission, the petitioner is granted liberty to make an
appropriate application after carrying out changes to the
building permit in tune with the change in scenario. If such an
application is being filed by the petitioner, that would be
considered and appropriate orders issued by the respondent
Corporation, as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
Scl/
2024:KER:70584
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6335/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 4/1/2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND REVENUE
PAYMENT RECEIPT DATED 8/11/18.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT
DATED 30/11/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PLAN SHOWING
THE EXTENT OF PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE REVOKING THE
PERMIT DATED 11/2/2010.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL
NO.253/2010 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
DATED 30/4/2010.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8/3/2013.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 6/1/2015 BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
4/5/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
2024:KER:70584
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
5/10/2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
7/2/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE AND
NATURE OF THE PETITIONER'S AND
ADJACENT PROPERTY
Exhibit P13 TRUE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.11.2010
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P13
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
