IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 34725 of 2007(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ REENA BHASI, W/O.C.L.BHASI, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, GANDHINAGAR 1ST, TRISSUR ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, TRICHUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.VINCENT RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT(M) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, KUNNAMKULAM, THRICHUR DIST. R1-R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.34725 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 4th March, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is that her application for construction of a residential building on the property having an extent of 10 cents within the area of the Kunnamkulam Municipality was rejected on the ground that allowing the application will necessitate deviation from the zoning regulations in the approved DTP Scheme pertaining to the Kunnamkulam Municipal area. According to the petitioner, the plot is the only item of immovable property belonging to her and she is presently living in a rented building. Therefore she refers to Ext.P7 Government Order passed by the Government on 4.8.2003 in favour of the owner of a neighbouring property and submits that the Government should be directed to review its stand in the light of Ext.P7. Ext.P5 review petition has been submitted by the petitioner before the Government and one of the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition is to direct the Government to dispose of Ext.P5 review petition. 2. I have heard the submissions of Mr.K.J.Vincent, counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Grashious Kuriakose, Standing Counsel for the Municipality and Mr.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned Government W.P.C.No.34725/07 - 2 - Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 3. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that Ext.P7 Government Order was issued by the Government much prior to the judgment of this court in Sayeesh Kumar v. State of Kerala (2005 (4) KLT 1027). At the same time he submitted that the Government will be ready to dispose of Ext.P5 review petition early if this court directs such disposal. Mr.Grashious Kuriakose, counsel for the Municipality submits that Ext.P4 order of the Municipality rejecting the petitioner's application for building permit gives room for some confusion. According to him, the petitioner's request was not for construction of a residential building but it was for construction of residential-cum-commercial building. Mr.K.J.Vincent, counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's intention is to construct a residential building only. There are several other residential buildings constructed in the area in question. I record the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's request is only to construct a residential building in the property. Permitting the petitioner to construct residential building will not necessitate any deviation from the zoning regulations in the DTP Scheme relating to the Kunnamkulam area. Under these circumstances, I allow the Writ W.P.C.No.34725/07 - 3 - Petition quashing Ext.P4 and direct the Municipality to reconsider the petitioner's application for building permit and grant the petitioner a building permit for the construction of a residential building. In other words, if the plan reveals that the proposal is to construct residential building, approval will be granted to the same. If it is seen that the plan presently submitted is one for a residential-cum-commercial building, the Municipality shall permit the petitioner to submit a revised plan for a residential building. Needful will be done by the petitioner and the Municipality at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving copy of this judgment. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE