Skip to main content

Individual Flat Owners Have No Right For Separate Water Connections

A division bench of High Court of Kerala recently reversed a single bench’s ruling that allowed individual flat owners to seek separate water connections. This writ appeal (W.A. No. 1556 of 2016) filed by Kerala Water Authority had come up for admission on 27-10-2016 against the judgment dated 28.3.2016. The division bench of Chief Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Justice Sathish Ninan held that only a common connection could be obtained for the entire apartment complex. By the impugned judgment, the single judge had directed the appellants to consider the application filed by the writ petitioners in terms of Regulation 7(d) of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations, 1991, allowing them individual domestic connection. The single bench had said individual flat owners could not be directed to apply for the entire apartment complex in terms of Regulation 7(g) as they were seeking only separate connections to individual apartments owned by each one of them and not a common connection to the apartment complex. Firstly, the division bench stated that Regulation 7(d) may be applicable in the case of one or several houses situated on the same premises, but bearing separate house numbers and that cannot be applicable to an apartment complex. Secondly, the division bench found that the single judge has ignored the provisions of Section 38A of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act 1986’), and the purport behind Regulation 7(g) read with Appendix – C to the Regulations. The above cited legal provisions state that it is not open for individual flat owners in an apartment complex to seek water connections individually. “The individual apartment owners cannot be equated to the owner of the independent houses under the provisions of the Act, 1986, as well as the Regulations. These provisions make it clear that the authorised representative of the apartment complex will have to make application seeking water connection to the apartment complex,” the judgment said.

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/individual-flat-owners-no-right-separate-water-connections-kerala-hc/

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...
24 comments
Read more

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...
Post a Comment
Read more

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a...
13 comments
Read more