THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITIZENS PROTECTION Vs. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT; CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM; PADMANABHA PROPERTY DEVELOPERS, STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.(C) No. 8101/07 is filed by the Thiruvananthapuram Citizens Protection Forum and W.P.(C) No. 24546/07 is filed by the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram. In both these writ petitions, the order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No. 340/06 is under challenge and hence these cases are disposed of by this common judgment. In W.P.(C) No. 8101/07 this order is produced as Ext. P10 and in W.P.(C) No. 24546/07 this order is produced as Ext. P4. For convenience I shall be referring to the pleadings and documents as they are marked in W.P.(C) No. 8101/07.

(2.) By Ext. R3(a) sale deed dated 10.3.2005, the 3rd respondent purchased 14.700 cents of land with a building thereon. According to the petitioner, soon after the 3rd respondent purchased the property on 22.3.2005 he made an application to the Corporation for a building permit for the construction of a commercial building. It is stated that in an undue haste the process was completed and Ext. P8 building permit was issued on 1.4.2005. An existing building was demolished and construction of the new building was started immediately thereafter.

(3.) Coming to know of this, petitioner submits that they represented to the Government which issued Ext. P1 dated 10.6.2005 informing the Secretary of the Corporation that the construction violates the statutory town planning scheme as per which the building height in the area is restricted to 8 metres and that the plot is located in the residential zone. It is also stated that the Corporation had not sought the advice of the Art and Heritage Commission in this matter. On this basis the details of the construction, the details of the permit given, reasons for permitting the construction and for not obtaining the advice of the Commission were sought for. On receipt of Ext. P1, the Corporation issued stop memo dated 14.6.2005 requiring the 3rd respondent to stop further construction.