IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 2841 of 2011(E) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- KOMALAM, AGED 65 , W/O.PANDARIPARAMBIL RAMESAN, MAILIPADAM DESOM, CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR, REP BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.G.RAMESH,AGED 71, S/O.PANDARIPARAMBIL GOVINDAN, MAILIPADAM DESOM,CHEMBUKAKVU VILLAGE,THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT GOVT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REP BY ITS SECRETARY,M O ROAD, THRISSUR. 680 001. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.RAMESH R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS SRI.V.N.HARIDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 2841/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/12/2004 BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA ORDER DATED 18/10/2005 P3: COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DATED 04/09/1992 ALONG WITH THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER. P4: COPY OF THE INTIMATION BY THE TOWN PLANNER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05/06/2006. P5: COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE NECESSARY SKETCH DATED 01/08/2006. P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04/08/2006 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SEEKING RENEWAL FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PETIIONER DATED 17/09/2009. P8: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27/02/2010 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P9: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23/04/2010. P10: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28/05/2010 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER. P11: COPY OF THE SECOND COMMUNICATION DATED 28/05/2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. P12: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 05/08/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 2841 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July 2011. JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P12 order passed by the Thrissur Municipal Corporation and for a direction to the Corporation to renew the permit of the petitioner for such period as contemplated in law within the time frame fixed by this Court. Ext.P12 order direct the petitioner to measure the property with the assistance of Taluk Surveyor to demarcate the boundary between the petitioners property and adjoining puramboke land and approach the corporation only thereafter for renewal of the permit. 2. The petitioner owns 32.5 cents of land. The application for permit for the construction of the residential apartment was rejected by the W.P.(C) No. 2 Corporation. The petitioner approached Government of Kerala. Government passed Ext.P2 oder granting sanction to construct the building subject to the conditions stipulated therein. 3. There is a puramboke thodu on the south western side of the petitioner's property. Based on the application for permit and based on the report of the Building inspector as well as the Town Planning Officer of the Corporation, the corporation issued communication to the petitioner to submit necessary sketch with details concerning the property of the petitioner. Ext.P4 dated 5.6.06 communication was issued. The petitioner pointed out in the reply to Ext.P4 communication that the property was surveyed and demarcated by the Retired Taluk surveyor with the assistance of survey superintendent and produced the sketch showing the plan of the property. Ext.P5 is the sketch produced by the petitioner. The corporation issued W.P.(C) No. 3 Ext.P6 communication stating that the town planing officer of the corporation passed order pointing out that portion of the puramboke thoudu is included in the property and therefore, appropriate site plan in accordance to the Rules will have to be submitted and Ext.P6 is the communication dated 4.8.06 of the 2nd respondent Corporation. The property was identified in Ext.P5 survey sketch and this was accepted and permission was granted to the petitioner subject to further condition that the petitioner shall produce site plan of his property. 4. Building permit got expired on 10.10.09. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application for renewal of the license. On receipt of Ext.P7 application the Corporation issued Ext.P8 communication dated 27.2.2010 to the retired Taluk Surveyor who had measured and prepared Ext.P5 plan directing him to measure and locate W.P.(C) No. 4 the puramboke thodu. Petitioner sent Ext.P9 communication dated 23.4.2010 stating that the Building Inspector, Town Planning Officer and Retired Taluk Surveyor measured the property and verified the records and had approved the site for the purpose of granting permit in 2009. Therefore, further measurement of the property is not necessary for the purpose of granting renewal of the permit. Exts.P10 and P11 are also communications sent by the petitioner to the Secretary of the 2nd respondent Corporation. The Corporation reiterated the stand by issuing Ext.P12 that further identification of the property is necessary for the purpose of granting permit. Ext.P12 is under challenge. 5. Originally, the permit was declined to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Government and Government passed Ext.P2 order granting permit. Original permit was issued after W.P.(C) No. 5 measurement of the property and after satisfaction of the identity of the property. The petitioner submits that the issuance of Ext.P12 and earlier communications issued by the Corporation is intended to put difficulty to the petitioner and that the reasons stated in all such communications are with the object of taking vengeance to the petitioner and hence interference of this court is warranted. Counsel for the petitioner submits that one permit was granted after verification of all documents including site plan, measurements etc. and are found to be correct, there is no justification for directing the petitioner to measure and demarcate the boundary between the petitioner's property and the puramboke thodu on the south west again for the purpose of renewal of building permit. The petitioner pointed out that previous to the grant of original permit, the property was measured and it is after ensuring that there is no W.P.(C) No. 6 encroachment into any puramboke property, the permit was granted. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there is no necessity to submit another plan for the purpose of renewing the permit. 6. Ext.P6 notice was issued at a time when the original application for grant of permit is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent. After considering all aspects and after satisfying that the property in which construction is to be made belongs to the petitioner, the corporation issued building permit dated 11.10.2006. Therefore, the Corporation is not justified in insisting for measurement of the property again as directed in Ext.P6. It was issued on 4.8.2006 i.e. before the issuance of original permit and under these circumstances Ext.P12 communication directing the petitioner to survey and demarcate the property and submit plan as the pre-condition for granting renewal of permit cannot stand. W.P.(C) No. 7 7. In the result, Ext.P12 order is quashed. The 2nd respondent Corporation is directed to consider and grant renewal of permit within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE al