Anto P.P vs Thrissur Corporation Represented By Its Secretary, Corporation Office, Thrissur

Mohammed Nias C.P.,

The petitioner is the owner of an extent of land measuring 4.75 cents in Survey No.539/1P of Chembukavu Village in Thrissur District within the Corporation limits. He was sanctioned with a building permit, Ext.P2 dated 29.01.1999, after the District Collector by order dated 17.03.1998 granted the benefit of exemption from zoning regulation of the sanctioned master plan. The said permit was valid for three years and was renewed from 24.01.2002 to 24.01.2005. The petitioner submits that due to paucity of funds he could not complete the construction within the time granted and on 24.01.2005, the petitioner again sought for renewal of Ext.P2 building permit. Though the petitioner was pursuing, he learnt that the files were misplaced in the office of the Corporation and finally the Corporation directed him to remit the renewal fee and only on 16.06.2008 the petitioner was informed by the petitioner that the missing files were traced out and the petitioner was asked to remit the renewed building permit. The petitioner submits that he was given the renewed building fee on 17.06.2008, which speaks of the expiry of the period on 24.01.2008. The petitioner submits that the delay in getting the renewed permit was not attributable to him in any manner and he can not be faulted for the delayed application for the occupancy certificate. The petitioner then submitted a representation, Ext.P6 dated 23.06.2006 for the issuance of an occupancy certificate to which the Corporation responded by noting certain defects, that the petitioner had exceeded the coverage area while constructing and the lack of the requisite car parking facilities and resultantly, declined to issue the occupancy certificate. The petitioner therefore sent a request to the Town Planning Officer of the Corporation on 29.10.2008 pointing out that the coverage area has been reduced, and therefore sought for issuing the occupancy certificate. As according to him, the alleged defect has been cured, Ext.P11 dated 11.08.2009 was issued directing the petitioner to submit a revised plan in tune with the constructions made. Later, as per the decision in the Adalath that took place, on the assertion of the petitioner that the defects were cured, the Corporation was directed to conduct an inspection to ascertain the said fact. The writ petition is filed for directing the respondents to issue the occupancy certificate and also to finalise the proceeding pursuant to Ext.P10, after hearing them.

This Court by order dated 24.02.2021 directing the Standing Counsel of the fist respondent Corporation to ascertain and report as to whether the building of the petitioner, as it stands now, conforms to the permit originally granted.

3 A statement has been filed on behalf of the Corporation, wherein, it is stated that as per the completion plan the building was having a total plinth area of 245.16m2 (GF 114.50 m2 FF 114.50 m2 and SR 16.16 m2), whereas, as the building permit sanctioned as per Ext.P2 what was permissible was only 88.03 m2 in the ground floor and 126.61 m2 in the fist floor and thus there is deviation from the permit granted. The other defects noted was that roofing to the stair case was not done and handrail was not fitted. It is also stated that construction of the toilet and front side shade were not completed.

Heard Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Santhosh P.Poduval, the learned Standing counsel for the Thrissur Corporation.

After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the records it is seen that changes were made by the petitioner while constructing the building as per Ext.P2 building permit granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is prepared to cure the defects pointed out by the Corporation, so as to make it in conformity with the applicable laws. Learned counsel also submits that he cannot be blamed for the delay in getting the renewal of the permit and the renewal for the third time was issued after the period mentioned in the said permit was over. Learned counsel further submits that the objections pointed out against the construction comes for first time in the statement filed before this Court and thus he was not aware of the same before.

Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation on the other hand submitted that the petitioner can be issued with the occupancy certificate only if he submits a completion certificate along with the revised plan, which will be considered in accordance with law. Taking into account the fact the petitioner could not put the building to any use all these years and the fact that the defects noticed of such that it is capable of being rectified, I order this writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit a completion plan before the respondent Corporation, if it has not been submitted already, which the Corporation will consider in accordance with law. The first respondent will also conduct a physical inspection and intimate the petitioner in case there are any subsisting defects and reasonable time shall be granted to the petitioner to cure the defects in the construction, if any. Such an exercise should be completed by the first respondent Corporation and a decision on the grant of the occupancy certificate will be taken within two months from the date of submission of the completion plan by the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.