IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P.CHALY, JJ.
P.B.Pradeep Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Maradu Municipality Represented By Its Secretary, Maradu - Respondent
WA No. 133 of 2022
Decided on : 04-03-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 300A - Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 - Section 67, 67(2), 67(3), 113 (1) - Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 - Rule 3A - Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 - Writ Appeal - Obligation to acquire land in certain cases - Appellants, they are absolute owners in possession - Appellants that being desirous of developing properties and construct a multistoried residential complex they entered into a joint venture agreement with 5th petitioner - Thereupon, appellants authorised 5th petitioner builder - Abad Builders Pvt. Ltd., for obtaining a building permit from respondents 1 & 2 as well as other necessary permissions from concerned - Whether, if property is earmarked for widening a road under a structural plan for central city of Kochi, provisions of section 67 of Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 can be applied or not.
Finding of the Court :
It is evident that a notice was issued under section 67 of Act, 2016 by appellants, which was forwarded by Secretary of Maradu Municipality to State Government - However, State Government declined acquisition on ground that section 67 would not come into play, thus coercing Government to acquire property. Therefore, on an analysis of legal and factual circumstances, it is clear that modalities contained under section 67 of Act, 2016 is completed and therefore, Secretary of Municipality is liable to consider building permit application submitted by appellants in accordance with provisions of Kerala Municipality Act 1994 and Kerala Municipality Building Rules 2019, which is in force now.
Result: Writ appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
SHAJI P.CHALY, J.
This appeal is preferred by petitioners in the writ petition challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17262/2020 dated 17.1.0222, whereby the learned Single dismissed the writ petition holding that the property shown in a scheme as reserved for roads is not liable to be purchased by the Municipality/Government invoking section 67 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 2016. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows;
2. According to the appellants, they are the absolute owners in possession of an extent of 24.73 Ares comprised in Re.Sy. Nos.221/4-2, 221/4-2-2, 221/4-2-2-2, 221/5-2-2, 221/5-3, 221/9, 221/10 and 221/12 of Maradu Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, as per document Nos.3612/2001, 1192/1986, 2145/2002, 2101/2001 and Settlement Deed Nos.665/2018, 666/2018 and 667/2018 of Maradu Sub Registrar Office.
3. It is the case of the appellants that being desirous of developing the properties and construct a multistoried residential complex they entered into a joint venture agreement with the 5th petitioner. Thereupon, appellants authorised the 5th petitioner builder - Abad Builders Pvt. Ltd., for obtaining a building permit from respondents 1 & 2 as well as other necessary permissions from the concerned authorities. Accordingly, appellants submitted an online application for building permit along with Fire NOC for the construction of 32 residential apartments spread in B+G+17 floors.
4. After submitting the initial application for building permit, the 2nd respondent gave oral instruction to the appellants to file a revised application to maintain a building line of 6 metres. Since the fire NOC and aviation NOC were obtained only after the resubmission of the application, those documents were again submitted before the 2nd respondent on 24.9.2018 and 14.11.2018.
5. It is submitted by the appellants that despite following all procedures and issuance of necessary NOC from concerned authorities, the 2nd respondent has not processed or issued the building permit sought for by the appellants. Thereupon, appellants submitted a revised application for building permit for construction of 26 apartments after reducing the floor area ratio. On an enquiry, it is informed by the 2nd respondent that building permit cannot be issued as there is a proposal for a 27 metre wide road from Willingdon Island to Muvattupuzha, passing through Sy.No.221 vide Structural Plan for Kochi -1991 and the same is under consideration for acquisition in connection with the formation of the road and therefore, the request for building permit cannot be considered.
6. Thereupon, according to the appellants, they issued a purchase notice under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016, hereinafter called, Act, 2016”, to the 2nd respondent, however, respondents 1 and 2 viz., Maradu Municipality & Secretary - Maradu Municipality, have not complied with the requirements and obligations under section 67(2) and section 67(3) of the Act, 2016. It is in this background, the appellants have earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.26281/2019, seeking the following reliefs:
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 to 3 to accord building permit being sought by the appellants as per Exhibit P4 - application, to effect construction of residential complex in their distinct land comprised in Re-Sy
Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra [(2020) 9 SCC 356]
Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465]
Raju S. Jethmalani and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2005) 11 SCC 222]
Regional Town Planner and Another v. Muhammed Rasheed and Others [2019(3) KHC 987(DB)]
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.