Whether cost of plant or machinery fixed in building can be included for determination of rateable value of building?

In the result, we allow the appeals and hold as under :-

(1) Sections 116(3) is declared invalid as it delegates unguided and uncanalised legislative powers to the Commissioner to declare any plant or machinery as part of land or building for the purpose of determination of the rateable value thereof;

(2) The cost of plant or machinery, lifts and air conditioners fixed on the land or building of the appellant in question shall not be liable to be included for the determination of the rateable value of the land or building;

(3) The decisions in Pragati Builders (supra) and that of the Full Bench of the High Court under appeal do not lay down the law correctly. Consequently, they are hereby over ruled (4) The appeals are accordingly allowed and impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside. The impugned assessment orders are set aside and remitted to the assessing authority under the DMC Act for passing orders afresh in accordance with law and the observations made in the judgment.

Supreme Court of India

Krishna Mohan Pvt. Ltd vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 28 July, 2003

Bench: Ruma Pal, B.N. Srikrishna

           CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil)  3312 of 2000
Citation:2003 AIR SCW3399:2003(5)Scale237:
2003(4) supreme 530

Print Page

Whether municipality can reject building permission on the ground of proposed Development plan?

  The Kerala High Court on Thursday, 30 July 2015 in a judgment titled ‘Havva T.P. Vs. Tirur Municipality‘ has opined that the Municipality is not at liberty to saddle the land owners by the proposed public purpose provided under a Detailed Town Plan Scheme (D.T.P.), without the land being acquired by the State Government or the Municipality for the purpose notified under the Scheme.
   On a reading of Rule 3, it is clear that the

applicability of the rule is for the purpose of carrying out

construction of public or private buildings and for other related

purposes. Therefore, the stipulation contained under Rule 3A

with regard to the supremacy of the Town Planning Scheme

can only be relating to the Rules regarding construction of the

buildings provided under Rule 3 referred supra. So also, in all

the afore cited judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court

as well as this Court, the Courts were largely considering the

question of Town Planning Schemes propounded under the

Town Planning Acts with reference to Article 300A of the

Constitution and held that without acquisition of the land, the

schemes so launched cannot be put into effect. Therefore,

the contention put forth by the Respondent that consequent to

introduction of Rule 3A, the Respondent was justified in

declining permit cannot be sustained. According to me, such a

principle was evolved by the Courts taking into account the

protection provided for enjoyment of the property conferred

under Article 300A of the Constitution.


     Taking into account all these circumstances and

settled legal position in accordance with the principles so laid

down by the Courts in the judgments cited supra, I am of the

considered opinion that the stand adopted by the Respondent -

Municipality that permit cannot be granted consequent on the

pendency of D.T.P. Scheme can never be sustained under law.



     Therefore, I set aside Ext.P3 order passed by the

Respondent - Municipality and direct the Municipality to take a

decision in the application submitted by the petitioners seeking

permit for construction of the building on production of

requisite order from the competent authority under the

K.L.U.O for use of the land for a different purpose in

accordance with law, taking into account the observations

made above.
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                               PRESENT:

                         MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

                 THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY,2015
                                   W.P.(C).No. 4050 of 2014 (E)
                                   

         HAVVA T.P, Vs TIRUR MUNCIPALITY,
            

Print Page

Whether National building code 2005 is mandatory in nature?

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday, 8 July 2015 in a judgment titled ‘C.M. Dinesh Mani Vs. State of Kerala‘ has held that “non adherence to the guidelines issued under the National Building Code (NBC) cannot be a reason for setting aside Kerala Municipality Building (Amendment) Rules, 2013.

 A bench comprised of Chief Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice A.M. Shaffique observed that “National Building Code guidelines itself indicates that it is non statutory in nature, whereas it is for general application. It is for the respective State Governments to either decide to incorporate any provisions in the National Building Code as applicable to their building rules or to modify such provisions or to incorporate the same with such modifications as may be required in a particular State, as the case may be”.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

W.P (C) Nos. 20706, 21945, 25228 & 31673 of 2013

Dated this, the 8th day of July, 2015 

PETITIONER

C.M. DINESH MANI EX-MAYOR, CORPOATION OF COCHIN

RESPONDENTS

State of kerala

CORAM;ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

Print Page

Whether building plan of particular building is priced material under RTI Act?

 The priced material is indicated as publications printed

matter, text, maps, plans, floppies, CDs, samples, models or

material in any other form, which are priced, the sale price

thereof.  A building plan of a particular premises is not open for

sale and it is not priced.  Hence, it cannot be called as a priced

material.  In respect of other than priced material, the actual

cost of the copy has to be recovered from the party.  Thus, the

first respondent committed an error in coming to the conclusion

that the information sought by the petitioner is a priced material

and also upholding the demand made by the second respondent.  

If it is a priced material, the sale price should have been

indicated.  In case of other than priced material, the actual cost

should have been calculated.  Either way it has nothing to do

with the calculation of the amount as done by the second

respondent.

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO           WRIT PETITION No.3258 of 2008   

Sri O.M.Debara.  Vs The AP State Information Commission,

Dated;06-12-2014 

Citation; AIR 2015 Hydera 56

Print Page

How application for grant of permission for construction of a building is required to be decided?

It is, thus, now well-settled law that an application for grant of permission for construction of a building is required to be decided in accordance with law applicable on the day on which such permission is granted. However, a statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable time. [See Kuldeep Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi  2006 (6) SCALE 588].

Supreme Court of India

T. Vijayalakshmi & Ors vs Town Planning Member & Anr on 19 October, 2006

Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari

 Citation;(2006) 8 SCC502

Print Page

Whether sanction of building plan by municipal authority is in supersession of easementary rights?

While concluding, I would like to dispose of one more point: whether sanction of a building plan by a municipal authority is in supersession of easementary rights? My answer is no, fortified by Kamalakanta De Vs. Radhabalav Kundu reported in 84 CWN 624 (Para-15), Dhannalal & Ors. Vs. Thakur Chittarsingh Mchtapsuigh reported in AIR 1959 MP 240 (Paras 6 & 7) and Wheeler vs. J.J. Sanders Ltd. & Ors. Reported in 1995 (2) All.ER 697, Coventry Vs. Lawrence & Anr. (2014) UKSC 13 ( Para 89, 94, 95). To my mind the express mandate of the statute can be set up as a defence say, for example, when by an Act of Parliament the Kolkata metro rail was to be set up. Under its operation buildings were damaged, people had to bear up with unbearable noise, vibrations, polluting substances and so on. There was no remedy except those under the Act, which was compensation. Building according to the building rules does not get such protection according to the above authorities.

Calcutta High Court

Itc Limited vs Chowringhee Residency Private ... on 16 January, 2015

Author: I. P. Mukerji

  Citation;AIR2015 calcutta 37

Print Page

Whether Electricity company can charge higher tariff on the ground that building is not having occupancy certificate?

 This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that the
respondents have been demanding electricity consumption 
charges at three times the normal electricity charges only on the
ground that the petitioner did not secure Occupancy Certificate
from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad. 
 In my opinion, so long as respondent No.1, who is a
licensee under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, does
not amend its supply regulations/conditions in tune with the
Government policy qua levy and collection of tariff higher than
that prescribed under its Regulations, such levy cannot be
legally sustained. Being a licensee, it cannot charge its
consumers higher tariff than what is prescribed by the tariff
regulations, approved by the Regulatory Commission.
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

K.Mahender, S/o Balaiah..... Petitioner
Vs
The Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, reptd by its
Managing Director and three others......Respondents



Honble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy 
Writ Petition No.32906 of 2014
Date:05.11.2014 
Citation;AIR 2015 NOC234(HYD)

Print Page

Guidelines of supreme court regarding fire safety requirements of building

Adequate access for the fire-engines as an essential requirement:

37. Having noted the submissions of all the counsel in this behalf, what we find is that whereas the provisions for the mid-rise buildings up to 13 floors are somewhat adequate, those beyond are required to be strictly implemented from within as well. The provisions for the refuge floor and various requirements from within have to be strictly scrutinized and insisted upon. That apart the second proviso to DCR 43(1)(A) cannot stand scrutiny of minimum safety requirement. If the access of 6 meters is required from at least one side within the property for the fire engine to enter and move inside, we fail to see as to how in redevelopment proposals under DCR 33(7) where the plot size is up to 600 sq. mts., open space of 1.5 meters, can be said to be adequate. As fairly pointed out by Mr. Bhatt, the buildings on such plots can also go up to 20 floors, depending upon the number of flats for the occupants to be provided for. If that is so, it is necessary to have an open space of the width of 6 meters within the property for the fire engine to enter the property at least from one side which is so provided for every other building.

Print Page