SAINUDHEEN Vs. PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the owners in possession of 35 cents of property comprised in R.S.No.22/2 of Perinthalmanna Taluk, Perinthalmanna Village. According to the petitioners, they purchased the said property by virtue of document Nos.5967, 3522, 3523 of 2008 from one 'Gopinathan E.K. and others'. Since cultivation was not possible and the land was not suitable for paddy cultivation, the prior owners had obtained Exts.P1 to Ext.P7 series of orders, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, permitting them to convert the said land for the purpose other than paddy cultivation. In the light of Exts.P1 to Ext.P7, petitioners had applied for a building permit, to construct a commercial building, in the said property and after considering the materials on 1st record and conducting site inspection, the respondent issued Exts.P8 and P9 building permits, permitting the petitioners to construct a commercial building in the said property. While so, when the petitioners were proceeding with the construction in accordance 1st with Exts.P8 and Ext.P9, the respondent all on a sudden issued Ext.P10 show cause notice, calling upon the petitioners to show cause why Exts.P8 and Ext.P9 permits should not be cancelled and also directing the petitioners to stop the construction in the said property. This is the grievance highlighted in this Writ Petition and this writ petition is filed with prayer to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for records leading to Ext.P10 and quash the same and also to direct the 1st respondent to permit the petitioners to proceed with the construction in terms of permission granted in 1st Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 orders, passed by the respondent.

(2.) The respondent/Municipality filed a counter affidavit, admitting the issuance of Exts.P8 and Ext.P9 permit and contended that subsequently the respondent -Municipality was constrained to proceed against Exts.P8 and Ext.P9, by issuance of Ext.P10, on the basis of the letter sent by the Sub Collector, which is marked as Ext.R1(a).

(3.) In Ext.R1(a) it was stated that the prior owners of the petitioners were allowed to convert the paddy land for the purpose of construction of a residential building and not for commercial building and 1st the respondent was asked to show cause clarifying the circumstance under which the building permit was issued for the construction of a commercial building. Thus, Ext.P10 order was passed in consonance with Ext.R1(a) letter sent by the Sub Collector to the 1st respondent. In support of the above contention, the 1st respondent has produced Exts.R1(b) to R1(d) also, which would show the proceedings initiated by the Sub Collector against the alleged conversion of the paddy land for the purposes other than residential.