IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15248 of 2008(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- K.K.ABDUL NAZAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.ALIKUTTY HAJEE, KAVUNGAM KUZHIYIL HOUSE, VAVAD P.O., KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE - 671 572. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. KOZHIKKODE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOZHIKKODE. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKKODE CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOZHIKKODE. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOZHIKKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,SC,KOZHIKODE CORP. R1TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.15248/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 3.4.2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 15248 OF 2008 M ==================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The building permit sought for by the petitioner has been declined by the respondent Corporation by Ext.P2 order. There are two reasons stated. One is that the area in question is covered by a Town Planning Scheme and the other is that the width of the access road is less than 5 metres and therefore there is non compliance with Rule33(4) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. 2. In so far as the first objection is concerned, it is seen that the Town Planning Scheme was framed way back in 1987 and till date nothing further has been done. If that be so, there is absolutely no justification for preventing the land owners from making use of their land. This issue has been considered in several judgments of this court and this court had taken the view that the mere pendency of a scheme without anything more, can be no reason for denying permits to the land owners. Therefore, I am not impressed by the first reason for rejection stated in Ext.P2. 2. The next is the inadequacy of the width of the road. It is the admitted position that going by Rule 33(4) of the Kerala Municipality WPC 15248/08 : 2 : Building Rules, the minimum required width of the access road is 5 metres. Petitioner contends that in terms of the plan submitted by him (Ext.P1), the width of the road is 5.1 metre. According to him, the available width of the road satisfies the requirements. Even otherwise, it is now submitted before me that on actual measurements, if the width is found to be less than 5 metres, the petitioner will make up the deficiency and comply with the requirement of Rule 33(4) of the Rules. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, the matter will stand remanded back to the 1st respondent to reconsider the application made by the Petitioner in the light of the observations made above. For that purpose, Ext.P2 will stand quashed and the petitioner will be permitted to resubmit Ext.P1 plan for consideration of the 1st respondent. It is directed that if the petitioner submits Ext.P1 in the manner as directed above, the matter will be reconsidered and orders passed within 6 weeks of submission of Ext.P1. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp