Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1033
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
S.Ramachandran - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, Palakkad Municipality - Respondents
RSA No. 618 of 2018
Decided on : 25-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SMT.ANU JACOB SRI.K.V.WINSTON
For the Respondent: SHRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SC, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY – R1 ARJUN RAGHAVAN T.R.HARIKUMAR - R2 TO R5 POOJA PANKAJ
IMPORTANT POINT
The plaintiffs failed to establish the binding nature of the Layout Plan on the first defendant, and their delay in filing the suit undermined their standing to seek relief.
Headnote:
(A) Kerala Municipality Building Rules - Permanent prohibitory injunction - Plaintiffs sought to restrain construction on Plot No.19 earmarked for a park as per the approved Layout Plan, which the defendants contested based on ownership claims. The courts found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the binding nature of the Layout Plan on the first defendant. (Paras 1 - 12 )
(B) Locus Standi - The first defendant argued the plaintiffs lacked standing to file the suit as they did not prove their ownership or interest in the property. (Paras 3 , 11 )
(C) Delay in filing suit - The plaintiffs filed the suit only in 2010 despite the alleged violation occurring in 2010, and failed to explain the delay. (Paras 11 , 12 )
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs owned residential plots in Ayodhya Nagar, with Plot No.19 designated for park use. The first defendant attempted construction on this plot, leading to the suit for injunction. (Paras 1 , 4 )
Findings of Court:
The courts dismissed the suit, affirming that the plaintiffs did not establish the Layout Plan's binding nature on the first defendant or their ownership of the property. (Paras 4 , 12 )
Issues: The main issues included the binding nature of the Layout Plan on the first defendant and the plaintiffs' standing to sue. (Paras 3 , 11 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the Layout Plan was binding on the first defendant, and their delay in filing the suit undermined their claim. (Paras 11 , 12 )
Result: Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The plaintiffs in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction are the appellants. As per the plaint allegations, they have residential plots in a residential colony by the name of Ayodhya Nagar, which was formed 25 years back and now consists of 40 residential plots. The plaint schedule property having an extent of 10 cents is inside the said Ayodhya Nagar, which is numbered as Plot No.19, and it is earmarked for park as per the Lay Out Plan approved by the Palakkad Muncipality. It was one Padmanabhan who developed the properties and obtained necessary approval for Lay Out Plan and as per the provisions of Kerala Municipality Building Rules , 10% of the total area shall be kept for recreational purposes. The cause of action for the suit is that on 14.03.2010, the first defendant attempted to make construction in Plot No. 19, which was earmarked for the park in the residential colony. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the first defendant and her men from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of plaint schedule property and carrying out any construction activities therein.
2. The Secretary Palakkad Municipality was also impleaded as the 2nd defendant in the suit. The 2nd defendant/Municipality remained ex parte.
3. The first defendant opposed the suit prayers by fling Written Statement contending inter alia that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. The plaint schedule property is an exclusive ownership that is the possession of the first defendant The plaint schedule property is purchased from the legal heirs of Subramaniam, as per Ext.B1 of the year 1995. The Layout Plan developed and got approved by Padmanabhan is not binding on the said Subramanian or the first defendant. The plaint schedule property is an enclosed house plot with compound wall and gate put up in the year 1995.
4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the Layout Plan for the residential colony and that the layout plan obtained by Padmanabhan, if any, is not binding on the first defendant, as the first defendant purchased the property from Subramaniam.
5. Though the plaintiffs filed appeal before the First Appellate Court and the same was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
6. I heard Sri. Jacob Sebastian the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Binoy Vasudevan the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, and Sri.T.R.Harikumar the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5, who are the legal heirs of the original first defendant.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Layout Plan is not available in the records of the municipality. That could not be treated as a permission for the owners of the plot to violate the Layout plan. Though a Writ Petition was filed before this Court in this regard and Ext.A3 interim order was passed, ultimately the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the Municipality to make necessary enquiry into the matter, but nothing fruitful was happened pursuant to the said direction. It is clear from Ext.A3 Report of the Regional Joint Director Urban Affairs dated 17.08.2010 that Plot No. 19 is earmarked for the park as per the Layout Plan. When the Municipality permits the development of a housing colony as per a Layout Plan, the owners of the plot are bound to develop the land in accordance with the Layout Plan issued and approved by the Municipality. The Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, failed to consider the matter in the right perspective.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the Layout Plan is not available with the Municipality as of now. Pursuant to the directions in the Writ Petition, the Municipality made necessary enquiry and concluded the matter.
9. The learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 contended that the first defendant purchased the property in the year 1995. He purchased the property from one Sub
