High Court of KeralaWP(C)/2282/2015disposed of

Benny Alappat v. Thrissur Corporation

2015-01-29Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/9TH MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 2282 of 2015 (I) --------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------ BENNY ALAPPAT, S/O ANTONY, ALAPPAT CHEMUNDA HOUSE, VELIYANUR, THRISSUR.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA SRI.K.D.SREEVISAKH RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR-680001.

2. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR-680001.

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR-680001. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN SRI.V.N.HARIDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 2282 of 2015 (I) ------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------- EXT.P1 :

TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.KKY/BA-64/2011-12 (REVISED)ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT CORPORATION DATED 03/9/2012.

EXT.P1(A) :

TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1.

EXT.P2 :

TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08/01/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXT.P2(A) :

TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

- NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE mbr/

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

--------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 2282 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2015

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, being the owner and possessor of certain property in Thrissur Village, obtained Exhibit P1 building permit on 03.09.2012. Later, when the petitioner applied for renewal of Exhibit P1 building permit on 11.11.2014, the respondent Corporation rejected it through Exhibit P2 on the ground that the petitioner's property falls within the Residential Zone of DTP for Kannamkulangara South West Extension. Aggrieved thereby, he has filed the present writ petition.

3. At the outset it is to be observed that the petitioner

W.P.(c) No. 2282 of 2015 was granted Exhibit P1 permit way back in 2012 when the respondent Corporation did not raise any objection on the issue of the property having been situated in a Residential Zone. At any rate, this Court through a catena of judgments has held that unless the scheme has been sanctioned and implemented, no owner of the property shall be deprived of the right to enjoy the property as he or she deems fit. Illustratively it can be stated that in Nazar v. Malappuram Municipality [2009 (3) KLT 92] and Secretary to Government v. Nazar [2010 (1) KLT 286] this Court has reiterated the said principle based on the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Raju S. Jathmalini & Others v. State of Maharashtra [2005 (11) SCC 222.

4. In the facts and circumstances, Exhibit P2 is set aside. Consequently, the respondent Corporation is further directed to consider the petitioner's application dated 11.11.2014 afresh.

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-