High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 02 KL CK 0037

Musthafa Hudavi vs State of Kerala, Chief Town Planner, Town Planner and The Secretary, Vazhakkad Grama

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 17 February 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Antony Dominic, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) . No. 31004 of 2009 (U)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 437 words

Antony Dominic, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner''s grievance is mainly against Ext.P4 order passed by the Panchayat rejecting the application made by him for a building permit, which is stated to be for the purpose of construction of a school building. According to the petitioner, the property in question was acquired as per Ext.P1 document, which is stated to have been corrected by Ext.P6.

2.

It is stated that he made application for building permit. The lay out was approved by the Town Planner as per Ext.P3. However, the application for building permit was rejected by Ext.P4 order passed by the Panchayat relying on certain conditions of Ext.P3 order of the Town Planner. Thereupon, the petitioner moved the Town Planner himself and got Ext.P3 modified by Ext.P5 with a further direction to the Panchayat to consider the application made by him in the light of Ext.P5.

3.

When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction to the Panchayat to consider his application for building permit in the light of Exts.P3 & P5.

4.

A reading of Ext.P4 shows that one of the main grounds for rejection is the order passed by the Munsiff Court, Manjeri in O.S. No. 107/2006. The second reason stated is the non-compliance of the conditions imposed by the Town Planner in Ext.P3. As can be seen from Ext.P5, the Town Planner himself has modified the condition relied on against the petitioner by Ext.P5 order, and if that be the case, application made by the petitioner needs to be reconsidered in the light of Ext.P3 as modified by Ext.P5.

5.

In so far as the first objection raised in Ext.P4 about the interim order passed by the Munsiff Court, Manjeri in O.S. No. 107/2006 is concerned, it should be stated that the said order is still in force and therefore, even if building permit is eventually granted to the petitioner, the construction cannot be otherwise than in compliance with the interim order passed by the Sub Court in O.S. No. 107/2006. Therefore, it is clarified that this judgment or any permit granted, will not enable the petitioner to proceed with the construction otherwise than in compliance with the interim order of the Sub Court.

This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing the Panchayat to reconsider the application made by the petitioner for building permit in the light of Exts.P3 & P5. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.