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

2025 Supreme(Ker) 2876

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Gandhi Bazar Merchants Society, Represented By Its Secretary – Appellant
Versus
The Perumbavoor Municipality, Represented By Its Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
W.A. Nos.897 of 2019 and 86 of 2022
Decided On : 09-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. S. Sreekumar (Sr.), Shri. T.R. Harikumar.
For the Respondents: Sri. S. Vinod Bhat, Sri. Legith T. Kottakkal.

Co-owners cannot alter shared access rights without unanimous consent; disputes regarding property boundaries and access must be resolved in civil court.

Headnote:(A) Kerala Municipality Building Rules - Issues pertaining to access and occupancy certificates - The appellants challenged the issuance of the occupancy certificate for a construction on Plot C without proper access and setbacks for adjoining plots. The Tribunal previously allowed the application from the builders who created plans to manipulate land use. The court emphasized that co-owners cannot alter shared access without consent. The matter must be resolved through civil proceedings involving all affected parties. (Paras 1-8)

(B) Collective ownership rights - The division of land into plots requires consent among co-owners for any alterations to shared areas - The owner of one plot may not include additional road access in their building area to meet construction requirements. (Paras 7-8)

Facts of the case:
The Gandhi Bazar Merchants Society challenged the legality of an occupancy certificate issued for a building on a subdivided plot, asserting there was insufficient access to support the construction according to Municipal Building Rules. (Para 5)

Findings of Court:
The court held that any alteration regarding land access must involve all co-owners in civil proceedings, as current land use manipulation was improper. (Para 8)

Issues: Whether sufficient access to plots B and C existed for an occupancy certificate to be valid, and if relinquishment of rights was adequately substantiated before the Tribunal. (Para 6)

Ratio Decidendi: Co-owners cannot unilaterally change agreed-upon access rights; such disputes must be settled through civil litigation, where all interested and affected parties are involved. (Para 8)

Result: Appeals allowed, with a directive for respondents to file a civil suit to clarify property rights.

Table of Content
1. ownership and division of property (Para 1 , 2)
2. appellate and tribunal procedures (Para 3 , 4)
3. issuance of occupancy certificate (Para 5 , 6)
4. right of owners over designated passage (Para 7)
5. requirement for civil court determination (Para 8)

JUDGMENT :

Amit Rawal, J.

These writ appeals have been preferred against the common judgment of the Single Bench dated 8.2.2019.

2. Gandhi Bazar Merchants Society is a registered society under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific, and Charitable Societies Act formed by the shop owners of the Gandhi Bazar, a shopping complex situated within Perumbavoor Municipality. The property where the Gandhi Bazar is situated was part of a larger extent of property admeasuring 69 cents. The ersthwile owners of the property mutually decided to divide the plots into five, with Plot A having 15 cents, Plot B-15.250 cents, Plot C- 15.250 cents, Plot D - 11.750 cents, and Plot E - 11.50 cents. The Gandhi Bazar building, consisting of about 40 shop rooms, is situated in Plots A, D, and E, whereas Plot C is in the name of Abdul Latheef and Fathima, who had subsequently purchased it from Suja Rajan. Suja Rajan is claiming the ownership of Plots B and C, having extents of 15.250 and 15.250, for a total of 30.5 cents. The shop owners of Gandhi Bazar had entered into an agreement with the property owners for allotment of specified undivided shares in Gandhi Bazar, and after construction of the building with the undivided shares, along with the parking area, purchased under different sale deeds dated 31.05.1994, and a total extent of 800 square meters of the area was set apart as parking space for the members of the appellant society. It is pertinent to mention that the Gandhi Nagar building was constructed with the building permit No. BA/281/92-93 issued by the Municipality. Since there was certain litigation between the squatters/encroachers who had set up the stalls in front of the building owned by the Gandhi Bazar, i.e., A, D, and E, a writ petition was filed, wherein the municipality made the statement that they will be removing the construction. However, in the meantime, the erstwhile owners, i.e., Abdul Latheef and Fathima, respondents 3 and 4, started construction of a building on Plot C, purchased under sale deed No. 466/1993, and on inquiry, it was revealed that the building permit was obtained by showing 800 square meters of parking area of the Gandhi Bazar as evident from the building permit dated 05.10.2006. Gandhi Bazar Society raised the objection before the Municipality on 19.02.2011. Noticing that the objection was raised, the erstwhile owners, respondents 3 and 4, submitted a revised plan showing the parking area of the Gandhi Bazar building as a common area and shifted their parking area to the basement / cellar portion. On the basis of the revised plan, a new building permit was issued on 24.02.2011 to the erstwhile owners. The permit issued with the cellar parking area was also objected to by the Gandhi Bazar building owners on various grounds. In the meanwhile, the erstwhile respondents 3 and 4 submitted another revised plan showing the parking area of the Gandhi Bazar building as a private road of 4.5 meters of width, leading up to the building constructed by respondents 3 and 4. Another revised plan permit dated 30.06.2011 was issued, which was objected to by filing a complaint apprehending that the permit may not be cancelled. Respondents 3 and 4 submitted a completion certificate on 02.11.2011 and requested the Municipality for issuance of an occupancy certificate.

3. However, on the receipt of the completion certificate and the application for occupancy certificate, the Secretary of Municipality issued a communication to the erstwhile owner pointing out that in the absence of a document showing access to the building of respondents 3 and 4, their application for issuance of occupancy could not be considered but only after obtaining the survey sketch from the T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top