High Court of Kerala
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
C. Philip George rep by his Power of Attorney Sheila George
Versus
The State of Kerala, rep. by The Chief Town Planner & Others
WP (C). No. 24034 of 2010 (D)
Decided on : 14-03-2014
Municipality Building Rules 1999 (Kerala), Rr. 3A & 11 - Building permission - Construction of Building - Acquisition of Land under Town planning Scheme - Obligation of Municipal Corporation while giving permission - Held, Secretary of a Municipal Corporation, while issuing building permits in terms of the K.M.B.R. is statutorily obliged to ensure that the construction, in respect of which the permit is issued, does not breach the provisions of any law -Rigour if the land comprised in the area, covered by the scheme in question, has itself been acquired through land acquisition proceedings for the purposes of the scheme - Mandate and purport of the scheme assumes the nature of a law that regulates future construction- that till such time as detailed development plans with respect to spatial planning envisaged under the Municipality Act, 1994 are prepared, recourse can be had by the Municipalities including Municipal Corporations to the existing town planning schemes and detailed town planning schemes to avoid a vacuum - S.42 of the said Ordinance, if prior to the commencement of the Ordinance any General Town Planning Scheme for an area including Master Plan or Development Plan or a Detailed Town Planning Scheme has been published and/or sanctioned under the Town Planning Act in force, such General Town Planning Scheme or Detailed Town Planning Scheme shall be deemed to be a Master Plan or a Detailed Town Planning Scheme published and/or sanctioned
1. The petitioner in this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks a declaration to the effect that the areas earmarked for parks, in a layout plan prepared under a scheme for the purposes of the Town Planning Act, cannot be used for any other purpose. It is the definite case of the petitioner that while the area in question was envisaged to be kept as a park under the scheme prepared by the State Government and the Greater Cochin Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'GCDA'), the Corporation of Cochin has since granted a building permit to the 7th respondent which would result in buildings coming up in the area in question. There is thus a further prayer to quash the Building permit issued by the Corporation of Cochin to the 7th respondent as also to direct the respondent local authorities – the GCDA and the Cochin Corporation – to remove all constructions made in the area in question and restore it as a park as envisaged in the scheme.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
The GCDA had framed a Town Planning Scheme that came to be known as the 'Elamkulam West Town Planning Scheme'. The said scheme was framed in accordance with the provisions of the Town Planning Act, 1108, and was sanctioned by the Government of Kerala vide G.O.MS 290/69/DD dated 15.10.1969 of the Development (Municipal Rules) Department. The scheme was duly published in the Kerala Gazette dated 21.10.1969 as required by Section 12 (5) of the Town Planning Act. GCDA thereafter acquired lands for the purposes of implementing the scheme and also prepared a detailed plan – produced as Ext.P2 in the writ petition - for a proposed housing colony. The plan envisaged wide internal roads, parks, recreational areas, a shopping complex and other amenities for the residents of the proposed housing colony.
3. It would appear that the 4th respondent Society entered into an agreement with the GCDA for the purchase of 2.3387 Hectares of land from out of the lands acquired by the latter for the implementation of the scheme. The 4th respondent Society did this with a view to develop a housing colony exclusively for its members. Thereafter, it prepared a detailed plan of the proposed housing colony. In the said plan, the available land was divided into 67 plots with a view to selling the buildable sites to members of the society who intended to construct residential buildings thereon. The plan also took into account the requirement of the residents for clean air, light and recreational facilities and accordingly provided for two rectangular plots – totally measuring about 30 cents – to be used as parks. All the residential plots and the two parks were well connected with wide internal roads as well. The Society then published the plan on the notice board of their office and invited applications from its members. The offer of residential plots to interested members was coupled with an assurance that the roads and parks shown in the plan would be maintained by the Society for the use of the residents of the Colony. The price of each plot offered for sale to members was fixed taking into account the total cost incurred by the Society in acquiring the land from GCDA and developing the same. The proportionate cost for providing common amenities like parks, internal roads etc. in the colony was also taken into account while arriving at the price of the plots offered for sale. The applications received from interested members were then processed and plots were allotted to them pursuant to draw of lots.
4. The petitioner’s mother, who was also a member of the Society, was allotted Plot No.60/2 having an area of 4.285 Cents in Sy.No.717 of Elamkulam Village. After finalizing the allotment process, the Society obtained transfer of 2.3387 Hectares of land comprised in Elamkulam and Ernakulam Villages from the GCDA vide Ext.P1 Sale Deed No.2603/1977 dated 13.10.1977 of SRO Ernakulam. T
Shasthri Nagar Colony Welfare Committee v. Calicut Development Authority (2006 (1) KLT 294)
Dr.G.N.Khajuria v. Delhi Development Authority (AIR 1996 SC 253)
Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S.Muddappa (AIR 1991 SC 1902)
Yogendra Singh Tomar v. State of M.P. (AIR 1997 MP 124)
D.D.Vyas v. Ghaziabad Development Authority
V.Shivaprasad v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KLJ 1)
Nirmal Kumar Moulik v. Sm.Champabala Roy (AIR 1971 Cal. 407).
Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S.Muddappa (AIR 1991 SC 1902)
City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Corporation of Maharashtra ((2007) 7 SCC 701)
Nizam v. Jaipur Development Authority (AIR 1994 Raj. 87)
Pt.Chet Ram Vashist (dead) by L.Rs. v. Municipal Corporation o f Delhi (AIR 1995 SC 430) ]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.