IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH THURSDAY,THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021/1ST ASWINA,1943 WP(C) NO. 11996 OF 2021 PETITIONER:

ANWAR P.K., AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUNHIBAVA, POKKAKKILLATH HOUSE, KUTTAMANGALAM, EDATHURUTHY P.O., THRISSUR-680 703.

BY ADVS.

P.B.KRISHNAN P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SABU GEORGE RESPONDENTS:

1 THRISSUR CORPORATION, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, KURUPPAM, THEKKINKADU MAIDAN, THRISSUR-680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2 THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, KURUPPAM, THEKKINKADU MAIDAN, THRISSUR-680 001.

BY ADV SHRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

[CR]

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2021 The petitioner seeks to call for the records relating to Ext.P10 and to quash the same. The petitioner also seeks to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider and take a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner for the building permit after considering Ext.P6 site plan.

2. The petitioner states that he along with his brother, were owners of 384.5 Cents of property in Survey No.48/1 of Koorkkenchery Village and Survey No.153P and 154/2 of Chiyyaram Village. There were certain transactions in respect of the property between the petitioner and his brother and finally, by Ext.P1 Partition Deed, the property was divided among them. By Ext.P1, the petitioner got 31.97 Ares of land in Survey No.48/1/1, 48/1/2 and 48/1/3 of Koorkkenchery Village as item No.1, another 5.13 Ares in Survey No.153 of Chiyyaram Village as item No.2 and 39.39 Ares in Survey No.154/2 of Chiyyaram Village as item No.3.

3. The predecessor in interest of the property had surrendered 29.5 Cents which was part of the aforesaid properties, for a road widening. The balance extent of property is eligible for the benefit of Chapter XI of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1999. The petitioner submitted an application for relaxation of the Rules under Chapter XI. As the petitioner obtained only half of the 384.5 Cents, the petitioner claimed benefit only in respect of half of the extent of property (14.525 Cents) surrendered. However, the Special Committee rejected the application of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner challenged the rejection order filing WP(C) No.38078/2016. This Court as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 28.09.2018, directed the State Government to reconsider the claim. Consequently, as evidenced by Ext.P5 minutes, the Government held that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of 3 FAR while granting a permit for constructing buildings in his property. The petitioner was required to submit a revised application in accordance with the exemption granted.

5. The petitioner proposed to construct a residential apartment complex in 20.70 Ares of property out of the larger extent in his possession. The petitioner submitted a revised plan claiming the benefit for the said area and reserving the benefit of Ext.P5 decision to be used for the balance land in future. Thereupon, the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P8 letter requiring the petitioner to submit a fresh plan including all the properties belonging to the petitioner.

6. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 representation pointing out that he is entitled to claim the benefit in part and that if the entire property is shown in the plan, the purchasers of apartment units may stake claim over the entire property. The 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P10 insisted to submit a fresh plan including the whole property belonging to the petitioner and calculating the FAR and coverage on the basis of the same. The petitioner challenges Ext.P10.

7. The 2^nd respondent contested the writ petition. The

2nd respondent stated that the petitioners purchased the property in 2005 whereas the predecessor in interest relinquished the property only subsequently. The petitioner obtained only a small extent of property in Survey N