IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 955 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11324/2009 Dated 06/04/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ ABOOBACKER, S/O. HUSSAIN HAJI, PANIKKAVEETTIL, BLANGAD.P.O, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, TRICHUR. 2. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE TRICHUR CORPORATION, TRICHUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, TRICHUR CORPORATION ZONAL OFFICE, VILVATTOM, TRICHUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH,J. ------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.955 of 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 6-4-2009 in W.P(C)No.11324/2009. Appellant is the petitioner. Petitioner is aggrieved since his request for building permit was not considered favourably by the respondent Corporation. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that the remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal. It is the contention of the appellant that though the reason stated in the rejection order Ext.P7 is that the request is in violation of the master plan and as per the plan the property is paddy field, there are buildings all around and there is no paddy field at all. In view of the above submissions we directed the officers of the respondent Corporation to be present before us with records. We also had the assistance of Advocate Sri.Dayananda Prabhu. It is brought to our notice that though as per records the place is shown as paddy field, there is neither paddy nor field. It is all W.A.No.955 of 2009 -:2:- dry land and there are buildings all around. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that as per the decision now taken by the Corporation construction to an extent of 200 square metres alone is permissible and in the case of the appellant the existing structure itself is around 360 square metres. But as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant the property is lying vacant. The request is only for additional construction. There are buildings in all the surrounding area. The property itself is surrounded by a compound wall. In that view of the matter, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances as available in this case, we think that it is only just and equitable that the request of the petitioner is considered favourably on condition that the petitioner gives an undertaking to the Corporation that in view of the additional construction thus made by the petitioner he will not claim any additional equity, in the event of the implementation of any development scheme or acquisition of the property by the Corporation. We make it clear that the view thus taken by us is only in the peculiar facts as brought to the notice of this court and it is not to be treated as a W.A.No.955 of 2009 -:3:- precedent. In the above circumstances we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge, quash Ext.P7 and dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent Corporation to pass fresh orders in the light of the observations made above within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. S.R.BANNURMATH, Chief Justice KURIAN JOSEPH, Judge ahg. S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH,J. --------------------------- W.A.No.955 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 25th May, 2009