Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. VIJU ABRAHAM, J
TRICHUR TENNIS TRUST REGISTERED SOCIETY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 22532 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ADV SHRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For the Respondents: ADV SHRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION
Existing KLU permissions must be honored for renovation requests within their scope, instructing reconsideration under relevant municipal regulations.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the decision declining their application for renovation and construction due to a purported lack of KLU permission over expanded land. The court found that existing KLU permissions covered the area in question, setting aside the decline and mandating reconsideration under Municipal Building Rules. The respondents are directed to grant necessary permissions if conditions are met. The permission decision must occur within one month.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner’s challenge on renovation application denied due to klu permission issues. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court observed existing klu permissions cover the construction area, urged reconsideration. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P9, whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for renovation of the club house/construction of additional floors was declined stating that KLU permission has been granted only in respect of 5058 metre square area, whereas the total area is 63.47 Ares.
2. Petitioner would submit that 1.25 acres owned by the petitioner is covered by Exts.P2 and P3 KLU permissions and in respect of the said property petitioner has submitted a building permit application and has constructed a building and occupancy certificate was issued in respect of the said building as per Ext.P4 and property tax was also paid in respect of the same as evident from Ext.P6. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application on 26.02.2021 for renovation of the club house/construction of additional floors, which has now been declined as per Ext.P9.
3. Heard the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent Corporation also.
Admittedly the petitioner has obtained Exts.P2 and P3 KLU permissions in respect of 1.25 acres of land, on which a building has already been constructed. Now the request made by the petitioner is for an additional construction over the existing building, which is already existing in 1.25 acres of land covered by Exts.P2 and P3 KLU permissions. If in fact additional floors is to be constructed to the existing building in the area covered by Exts.P2 and P3, I find no reason for rejecting the application as per Ext.P9 stating that the application can be considered only if KLU permission is obtained by the petitioner for 63.47 Ares of land. Accordingly Ext.P9 order is set aside. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent Corporation to reconsider the building permit application submitted by the petitioner for renovation of the club house/construction of additional floors strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Municipality Building Rules. If the renovation of the club house/construction of the additional floors could be undertaken in the 1.25 acres of land covered by Exts.P2 and P3 KLU permissions as per the provisions of the Municipality Building Rules, necessary permission shall be granted by the 3rd respondent Corporation without any delay. The decision as directed above shall be taken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Sd/-
