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

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 54335

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
RENJITH V.B. – Appellant
Versus
PONNANI MUNICIPALITY – Respondent
WP(C) 8060/2016



Advocates:
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH, SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN, SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD, SRI.J.RAMKUMAR, SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU, SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR, SRI RIYAL DEVASSY, GP, SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN, SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)

The Municipality must consider property inspections and petitioners' explanations before finalizing decisions on building permits and ownership certificates, adhering to statutory provisions.

Headnote:(A) Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008 - Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 - Petitioners challenged the issuance of a notice under Rule 16, claiming it was illegal as the land was used for construction despite being described as Nilam in revenue records - The court directed the Municipality to inspect the property and consider the petitioners' explanation before passing final orders. (Paras 1-3)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court emphasized the need for the Municipality to conduct a proper inspection and hear the petitioners before making any final decisions regarding the building permit and ownership certificate. (Paras 5-6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners owned land purchased in 2010 and had received a building permit for a three-storied building, but faced issues with the Municipality regarding numbering and ownership certification due to a notice issued under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the provisional numbering of the building and allowed the petitioners to submit their explanation regarding the notice, directing the Municipality to conduct an inspection before final orders.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the notice issued by the Municipality and the petitioners' rights concerning the building permit and ownership certificate.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Municipality must consider the petitioners' explanation and conduct an inspection before making final decisions, emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions.

JUDGMENT

These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these two writ petitions by a common judgment.

2. I will narrate the facts in W.P.(C). No.37491/2015 first:

Petitioners are the owners of 12 cents of land which was purchased by them in the year 2010 as per Ext.P1 sale deed, is the submission. The property owned by the petitioners is situated on the side of National Highway 66 (NH66) at Ponnani. It is submitted that, on the southern side of the property a movie theatre by name Alangar Talkies is functioning. It is also submitted that on the northern side of the property residential cum shopping complex of one Mrs. Amina Hamsa is situated and on the opposite side of the road just in-front of the property of the petitioners, residential cum shopping complex of one Mr. Abdul Rahiman is situated. It is submitted that, all these buildings are situated in pucca garden lands and are assigned with building numbers by the 1st respondent Municipality. It is submitted that, all these lands are lying contiguously with that of the property of the petitioners. Ext.P3 photographs is produced to prove the same. When the petitioners submitted an application for building permit for constructing a three-storied building, Ext.P5 building permit was issued in the year 2013. It is submitted that the building permit was issued after conducting local inspection regarding the present lie and condition of the properties, both by Revenue Authorities and the 1st respondent Municipality. It is submitted that the petitioners completed construction of two stories and Ext.P6 occupancy certificate for the ground floor was also issued by the 1st respondent. As evident Ext.P7, Revenue Building Tax was also remitted by the petitioners. But the 1st respondent refused to number the ground building and also to issue ownership certificate for the same. So the petitioners are prevented from applying for electrical connection is the submission. It is also submitted that, on the other hand, Ext.P9 notice is issued to the petitioners, purportedly under Rule 16 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules , 1999. According to the petitioners, the reasons stated in Ext.P9 goes against the statutory provisions, as provided in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act , 2008 and neither the 1st respondent nor its Secretary has power to revoke the building permit granted to the petitioners, going by Rule 16 of the . It is also submitted that, mere description of an item of property as Nilam or wet land in revenue records is insufÏcient to assume that the land cannot be used for any purpose. It is further submitted that immediate surrounding lands are also garden lands and have buildings being constructed with the permission of the 1st respondent Municipality and Building Numbers are also allotted by the Municipality. Hence it is submitted that Ext.P9 notice issued by the 1st respondent is illegal.

Therefore this writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P-9.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to number the ground floor of the building constructed by the petitioners in the property owned by them, as per Exhibit P-5 Building Permit and to issue Ownership Certificate for the same.

iii. Direct the 1st respondent to accept Building Tax for the ground floor of the building constructed as per Exhibit P-5 Building Permit iv. grant such other reliefs, as this Hon'ble Court shall deem just. (SIC)

2. W.P.(C). No.8060/2016 is filed to implement Ext.P9 notice in W.P.(C). No.37419/2015. The prayers in W.P.(C). No.8060/2016 is filed with following prayers:

i. Call for the entire records relating to Ext. P3 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction dire

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
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