MUSTHAFA Vs. PERINTHALAMANNA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.95 Ares of property situate in Sy.No.181/3 of Perinthalmanna Village. Petitioner initially intended to construct a building having an area of 245.48 square meter in his property and has secured the building permit from the Municipality on 29.12.2014, which was renewed up to 28.12.2020. However, it is admitted that petitioner could not start the construction work in 2014. Thereafter, petitioner decided to start construction work by securing an approval of a revised plan and thereupon, petitioner submitted a revised building plan for an area of 848.21 square meter and accordingly, submitted an application on 30.01.2018. On 07.05.2018, petitioner was informed as per Ext.P4 that, in view of the master plan, the existing road having a width of 12 meter is proposed to be widened to 21 meter, and since 21 meter width road is not taken into consideration while submitting Ext.P3 revised plan, application of the petitioner cannot be considered in accordance with the revised plan. It is thus challenging Ext.P4 and seeking other consequential reliefs, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) A detailed counter affidavit is filed for and on and behalf of the respondent Municipality refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner, an inspection was conducted and it is noticed that, the proposal made by the petitioner for construction of three storied building having a plinth area of 848.21 square meter and the area is ear-marked as residential zone. Though in terms of the master plan, permission for construction of commercial building can be granted, the statutory rules are to be followed. If the proposed road having a width of 21 meter is taken into account, there should be a set back of 3.5 meters from the road to the building and in accordance with the revised plan submitted by the petitioner, the said distance could not be attained. That apart, it is pointed out that, as per G.O.M.S.45/2018/LSGD dated 24.04.2018, Government has granted approval to the Town Planning Scheme. Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioner that there is no Town Planning Scheme so as to man the situations within the Municipality area cannot be sustained under law.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the Municipality and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.