Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BABU C.GEORGE, SON OF CHANDRATHIL versus THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BABU C.GEORGE, SON OF CHANDRATHIL v. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED - WP(C) No. 14250 of 2007(U) [2007] RD-KL 9309 (4 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 14250 of 2007(U)

1. BABU C.GEORGE, SON OF CHANDRATHIL
... Petitioner

2. MARIYAMMA BABU, W/O. BABU C.GEORGE,

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent

2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,

3. THE REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER,

4. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

For Respondent :SRI.K.ANAND

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

Dated :04/06/2007

O R D E R

K.M.JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C) No.14250 of 2007 U

Dated this the 4th day of June, 2007.



JUDGMENT

The case of the petitioners, briefly, is as follows:

2. The petitioners are owners of 32.361 cents of property in Survey Nos.42/1 and 42/2 of Edappally Village in Ernakulam District. They have proposed to construct a seven storeyed building and submitted an application as well as a plan for the building permit strictly in accordance with the Building Rules, 1999. They have made the application on 11.5.2006 as per the FAR Ratio as provided under the Kerala Building Rules, 1999. However, it was rejected on the ground of subsequent amendment restricting and reducing the FAR. According to the petitioners, the matter is covered by Exts.P2 and P3 judgments of this court.

2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Corporation, besides learned Government Pleader.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute that the matter is covered by Exts.P2 W.P.(C) No.14250 of 2007 U and P3 judgments. So, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the said judgments. The impugned order Ext.P1 shows that the application filed by the petitioners was rejected for two reasons: (1) Violation of the F.A.R and (2) Fire NOC is required.

4. Counsel for petitioner submits that FIRE NOC will be produced. In such circumstances, Ext.P1, insofar as it evidences rejection of the building permit sought for on the ground FAR violation, is quashed and the 4th respondent is directed to consider and take a decision afresh, in accordance with law, taking note of Exts.P2 and P3 judgments also. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH)

JUDGE

sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.