NADAYI MOHANAN Vs. THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION for building permit submitted by the petitioner for construction of residential house in a property owned by him having an extent of 6.36 cents has been rejected through Ext.P3 letter issued by the 1st respondent Municipality. The reason for rejection mentioned in Ext.P3 is that the property wherein the construction is proposed is included in the "Agriculture zone" as per the part variation scheme, 2007 submitted to the 'Thalassery Town Development Plan'. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3. Further grievance of the petitioner is against proceedings initiated against him under Section 406 (1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1995 alleging unauthorised construction and the apprehended action of forceful demolition of the construction, inspite of submission of detailed objections submitted.

(2.) CONTENTION of the petitioner is that the detailed town planning scheme was approved as early as in the year 1983 and it was formulated on the basis of the status prevailed as in the year 1973. But no steps pursuant to sanctioning of the development plan has been taken till date for implementation of the scheme. Petitioner relies on Exts.P4 and P5 inorder to show that the respondent Municipality themselves have expressed difficulties in implementation of the scheme. According to the petitioner the area wherein the property is situated is covered by a large number of constructions, both residential and commercial, and the locality does not remain as 'agriculture zone'. The petitioner had produced relevant extract of the notification issued by the Government fixing fair value of the property, which will indicate that the property is classified as residential plot. It is also contended that the property in question was not included in the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. According to the petitioner the area in question cannot be treated as agricultural zone and the proposal has become obsolete and unworkable. Hence the rejection for the reason assigned cannot be sustained, is the contention.

(3.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P. Jayasanker, learned special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 4 and 5.