SMIJO K SUNNY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext. P2 order by which an application for building permit submitted by them has been rejected. Reason stated for the rejection is that, as per GO (Ms) No. 2/2010 LSGD dated 01/01/2010, only documents registered prior to 19/01/2009 can be considered. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the application of the petitioners has been rejected under the provisions of Act 28 of 2008. Since the rejection has been without ascertaining the present condition of the land, it is contended that the order is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that no restriction on land use can be placed by a Master Plan that has not been implemented by follow up Land Acquisition proceedings. The petitioners, therefore, seek the issue of orders quashing Ext. P2.

(2.) Advocate P. A. Ahamed, who appears for the second respondent, has filed a counter - affidavit. It is stated in the counter - affidavit that, rejection of the petitioners' application was not on the basis of Act 28 of 2008. The same has been rejected in view of the fact that as per the Detailed Town Planning Scheme of the Municipality published on 02/02/1976, the property of the petitioners is coming within the Agricultural Zone (Paddy Field Zone). Therefore, no construction activities can be permitted therein. It is also contended that as per Ext. R2(a) Government Order, the Detailed Town Planning Scheme was varied, permitting construction up to an area of 300 sq.m. with the concurrence of the Chief Town Planner, with a rider that, existing paddy fields shall be retained as such. It is further pointed out that, as per Ext. R2(a), such applications are to be considered on the basis of the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Chairman of the Municipality, Secretary of the Municipality, the Agricultural Officer and the Village Officer. As per Ext. R2(a), it is contended that, only applications for construction on lands that were registered prior to 19/01/2009 shall be considered. It is contended that, the petitioners' application is not falling within the scope of the exemption contained in Ext. R2(a).

(3.) I have heard the counsel appearing for the contesting parties. I have anxiously considered the contentions advanced before me.