SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Ker) 671

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
N. SURESH – Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. – Respondents
WPC No.3927 of 2015
Decided On : 03-07-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR, SRI. P.A. MOHAMMED SHAH, SRI. SOORAJ T. ELENJICKAL, SMT. P.M. MAZNA MANSOOR
For the Respondents: GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR, SRI. M.P. ASHOK KUMAR, SMT. BINDU SREEDHAR, SMT. R.S. MANJULA

Compliance with zoning regulations and building rules is essential for construction approval in residential zones.

Headnote:

Zoning Regulations - Challenging Ext.P6 Zoning Regulations of the Development Plan for Changanacherry Municipality - Rule 143, Chapter 20 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 - Section 3A of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules - Section 16 of the Town Planning Act

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenges the Zoning Regulations of the Development Plan for Changanacherry Municipality and orders insisting on a 12-metre wide gate for a building above 100 sq. metres in the residential zone. The petitioner's property was approved for construction, but subsequent additional construction led to a dispute with the authorities.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's construction violated the conditions stipulated in the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and the Development Plan for Changanacherry. The court disposed of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to approach the Municipality for regularization after satisfying the specified conditions.

Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance with zoning regulations, building rules, and the authority's power to approve construction in the residential zone.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's failure to comply with the conditions stipulated in the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and the Development Plan for Changanacherry.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to apply for regularization after meeting the specified conditions.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 Zoning Regulations of the Development Plan for Changanacherry Municipality and Ext.P4 order passed by the second respondent and Ext.P5 consequential notice issued by the 5th respondent to the extent it insists of 12 metre wide gate for a construction of a building above 100 sq. metres in the residential zone.

2. The petitioner alleges that he is the owner in possession of 1 hectres 75 Ares and 49 sq.metres of property situated in Changanacherry Village having a road frontage of 32.75 metres abutting Alappuzha- Changanacherry Highway and the Highway is having a road width of more than 30 metres. The petitioner's project was a venture in Tourism sector, approved by the Government of Kerala in the “Global Investors WPC No.3927/2015 2 meet” which was kicked off by the Stage Government during the year 2002. On 10.10.2005, the second respondent approved the layout by Order No.C3/6645/05/DDS. Consequently on 15.3.2006, the 5th respondent issued a building permit to construct a building having a total area of 2510 sq.metres. On the basis of the approval and permit, the petitioner constructed the building. Later, the petitioner further conducted an additional construction in the aforesaid property having a total plinth area of 1145.25 sq. metres. After several rounds of litigation, the petitioner filed a fresh application for regularization. The second respondent issued various queries to the application which were all complied with by the petitioner and finally, the second respondent issued Ext.P4. In query No.3 issued by the second respondent in Ext.P4, a demand was raised to make sure that the width of the gate in the petitioner's property should be 12 metres. Later, the 5th respondent issued Ext.P5 re-iterating query No.3 in Ext.P4. The above query was issued depending a restrictive clause in Ext.P6 development plan of Changanassery which itself is not sustainable. The petitioner's property which is abutting the A.C. Road with a frontage of 32 metres does not require any further access through any property bounding some others property. The respondents cannot insist for improving the size of the gate towards the plot. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed a counter affidavit in which it was contended that the Development Plan for Changanassery was sanctioned vide G.O.(MS) No.224/84/LA & SWD dated 29.9.1984. The above Development Plan was revised in the year 2012. All future developments shall be in conformity with the provisions of the above plan. For the effective implementation and enforcement of the proposals envisaged in the Development Plan, areas have been categorized into various zones such as residential, residential mixed, commercial, public and semi public, transportation, recreational, parks and open spaces, paddy and environmentally sensitive zone, developable agricultural zone, water bodies etc. The above construction is completely in residential zone. On receiving the above application from the petitioner, the second respondent vide order No.C3- 4566/14/D.Dis dated 30.6.2014 granted lay out approval subject to satisfaction of 12 conditions. Then only respondents 1 to 3 can entertain the application. True copy of the same is produced and marked as Ext.R3(a).

4. As per Rule 143, Chapter 20 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, the Secretary of the concerned Municipality have power to regularize construction or re-construction or addition or alteration of any building or digging of any well, if shall not be in violation of any of the provisions of the Act and Rules, for which the petitioner has to comply the above 12 conditions. The above conditions are stipulated only in accordance with the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and considering the provisions of the Development Plan for Changanassery. The petitioner has not so far complied the above conditions. Without complying the above conditions, respon





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top