VIPIN VELLUVA REYIROTH Vs. SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the title holder in possession of 5.28 cents of land in Sy. No. 2978/1 in Ward No. 1, Block No. 72 of Palakkad -II Village, Palakkad Taluk, within the limits of the respondent/Municipality. According to the petitioner, the said property was left uncultivated being not fit for cultivation for more than one decade and the petitioner purchased the said property noticing the said fact and with an intention to put up a residential building. So also, there was no agricultural activity in the properties in the neighbourhood. In the above circumstance, the petitioner, having no residential building of his own, made an application seeking a building permit, for the construction of a residential building having an area of 190.51 M plinth area. But, the respondent/Municipality had earlier rejected an application, by Ext. P2, stating that the description of the property in the revenue records shows that the property is lying as 'Nilam' and the said property can be used for paddy cultivation and also certain corrections are seen crept in the application. Aggrieved by Ext. P2, the petitioner had preferred W.P.(c) No. 20834/15 which culminated into Ext. P3 judgment of this Court. In Ext. P3 judgment, this Court set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent/Municipality and directed to reconsider the application for construction of the building filed by the petitioner and if there is any error in the application, the petitioner may be allowed to rectify the same or fresh application may be called for and an order may be passed within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In compliance with the said direction, the respondent/Municipality again heard the matter and rejected the application again, by Ext. P4, stating that in the Master Plan, which came into existence in the year 1986 and renewed in the year 2009, the said property is lying in the zone earmarked for 'paddy cultivation'. So, the building permit cannot be granted in violation of the zonal classification in the Master Plan and the Plan is pending for approval of the Government. The legality and propriety of the reasoning, whereby the petitioner's application, seeking building permit, stands rejected under Ext. P4, are under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Municipality.

(3.) As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, going by Ext. P3 judgment, it is seen that this Court earlier set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's application for building permit and remitted the matter back to the respondent/Municipality for fresh consideration, in the light of the observations made in the said judgment.