IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10020 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAYISHUMMA, ELANATHIL HOUSE, PAN BAZAR, TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- TIRUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 006. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RESHEED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.10020 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T The mother of the petitioner had submitted an application for building permit and also for approval of a plan to the respondent Panchayat. Ext.P2 is the building permit issued in the name of the petitioner's mother. Exts.P2, P3 and P5 are the approved plans. On her death, being the legal heir, on the strength of Exts.P2, P3 to P5 the petitioner has effected the construction. According to the petitioner the construction was completed in the year 2008. Thereafter, she has submitted an application for assigning a building number and the said request was rejected on the ground of the violation of DTP Scheme road alignment. This writ petition has been filed in the said circumstances with prayers to quash Exts.P6 and P9 and to number the building constructed in survey No.233/7 of Tirur Village as per the building permit and plan. 2. Essentially, the contention of the petitioner is that there is no violation of Rule 56(7) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. It is further contended that the construction WPC.10020/11 : 2 : was effected strictly adhering to the condition in Ext.P2 building permit and in accordance with Exts.P3 to P5 building plans. With respect to the violation of road alignment of the DTP Scheme, it is contended that, in fact, the Municipality had constructed a road in violation of the DTP scheme and thereafter, applied to the Government for revision of DTP scheme by changing the road alignment. Admittedly, the said revision petition filed by the Municipality is still pending consideration before the Government. In case, the request made by the Municipality as aforesaid is ultimately granted by the Government, the objection now raised for rejecting the petitioner's claim would not survive and in such eventuality there would not be any impediment at all for assigning building number to the construction made by the petitioner. The learned standing counsel would also submit that after constructing a road which is in deviation with the DTP scheme, the Municipality has already approached the Government for revision of road alignment of the DTP Scheme. The said fact is evident from Ext.P9 as well. Admittedly, the application is still pending. In the said circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he is entitled to get an order akin to one that was passed by this Court in WPC No 17586/2008. WPC.10020/11 : 3 : Under similar circumstance this Court as per the judgment in the said writ petition directed the concerned respondents to consider and issue building permit provisionally and subject to Governmental sanction for the revised scheme. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled to get a similar benefit. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to assign building number to the building constructed by the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P2 provisionally and subject to Governmental sanction for the revised scheme as requested by the respondent Municipality. All other rival contentions are left open. The respondents shall assign the building number to the building constructed by the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P2 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge