BRINDA SURESH Vs. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the petitioner is entitled to deemed permit under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 [for short, 'the Act, 1994'] and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 [for short, 'the Rules, 1999'] in respect of the building covered by the revised plan, evident from Ext.P4 acknowledgement and also to quash Ext.P12 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No.414 of 2014, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, however, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to file application for regularization in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XX of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner and her husband Suresh Babu are in ownership of an extent of 44.160 cents of property comprised in Survey Nos.3204/2-3, 3208, 3290/2, 3123/1, 3123/1-1 and 3207/1 of Kowdiar Village situated within the limits of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. Petitioner and her husband jointly submitted an application before the 1st respondent for grant of building permit for basement plus 20 floors. Ext.P1 permit was granted and the construction was commenced. In the meanwhile, permit required renewal from 15.07.2010 to 14.07.2013, which was granted as per Ext.P2. Then it was noticed that, during preparation of the drawing, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for two basement floors, that is, 75.05 square metres in basement-2 and 62.99 square metres in basement-1 were not calculated by the 1st respondent. Therefore, the FAR for the building was mistakenly calculated at 6878.89 square metres, instead of 7055.97 square metres. This necessitated the submission of a revised plan. Accordingly, a revised plan along with a covering letter dated 05.11.2012, with a total plinth area of 9674.91 M2 instead of 10276 M2 in the approved plan, i.e., with a reduced area of 601.09 M2, evident from Exts.P3 and P4. The case of the petitioner is that, in spite of submission of the revised plan, 1st respondent did not take any effective steps to issue revised permit within 30 days as per Rule 14 of the Rules, 1999. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted a reference application viz., Ext.P5 dated 27.02.2013 before the Mayor, which contains endorsement of receipt dated 01.03.2013, requesting to grant revised permit, since the Secretary of the Corporation did not dispose of the application within the period prescribed. However, the Council also failed to take a decision in the application within 30 days, as the law stood then, as per Rule 15 of the Rules, 1999, and therefore, according to the petitioner, a deemed permit is accrued on and with effect from 01.04.2013, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipality Building Rules, 1999, and on that basis, petitioner carried on with the construction, and completed the construction as per the revised plan.

(3.) Thereafter, petitioner submitted a completion plan dated 10.06.2013, in accordance with the revised plan. However, no action was initiated and the building was inspected after a period of ten months. Therefore, according to the petitioner, under Rule 22(3) of Rules, 1999, petitioner is entitled to proceed as if occupancy certificate has been duly issued on and with effect from 26.06.2013, i.e., after a period of 15 days. Fact remains, the occupancy certificate was not issued to the petitioner and the Door number also is not assigned. Thereupon, petitioner was constrained to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. After hearing the respective parties, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. These are the basic facts available for considering the reliefs sought for by the petitioner.