← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/4937/2015allowed

Sameena v. The Malappuram Muncipality

2015-06-10Honourable Mr. Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/20TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 4937 of 2015 (N) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

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

1. SAMEENA,AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.ABDU SAMAD, PALLIYALIL HOUSE, DOWNHILL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

2. FATHIMA FASNA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.ABDU SAMAD, PALLIYALIL HOUSE, DOWNHILL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD SRI.MATHEW A KUZHALANADAN SMT.VINEETHA V.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM -676 505

2. THE SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM- 676 505 R1 & R2 BY SRI.ESM.KABEER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

WP(C).No. 4937 of 2015 (N) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2012 IN WPC.NO. 7563/12 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

P2:

TRUE COPPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

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

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

-------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 4937 of 2015 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Ext.P2, by which the petitioners' application for building permit was rejected, is under challenge.

2. The petitioners are the co-owners of certain land in Re.Sy.No.517/1, 2 of Malappuram Village within the local limits of the respondent municipality. The petitioner submitted an application seeking permit for constructing a commercial building, which was rejected by Ext.P2 stating that the proposed construction comes within the area of the alignment of bypass road, proposed in the Master Plan. According to the petitioners, the application was rejected based on the unimplemented proposal in the Master Plan without taking any step for actual acquisition of land. It is with this background, the petitioners have approached this Court.

3.

Arguments have been heard.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners invited

W.P.(C) No. 4937 of 2015 ..2..

my attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465], wherein it was held that no building permit can be refused to any person because there is a proposal to acquire the land in future. Reliance was also placed to the decision of the apex court in Raju S. Jethmalani v.

State of Maharastra [(2005) 11 SCC 222], wherein it was held that refusing to grant permits relying on obsolete DTP schemes is a clear violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Viewed in that profile, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to get the reliefs prayed for.

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed.

Ext.P2 is quashed and the respondent municipality is directed to reconsider petitioners' application for building permit within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE bka/-