ABRAHAM STEPHEN Vs. THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As all these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment.

(2.) In WP(C) 34954 of 2016 and 4877 of 2017, the petitioner is stated to be the absolute owner of 2.50 acres of land in Sy.Nos.151/4-1, 151/7-1, 151/7-2, 151/5-1, 151/3-1 and 151/6A-1 of Thodupuzha Village. It is the case of the petitioner that the property in question is a garden land planted with coconut trees and the petitioner relies on Ext.P2 certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki, certifying that there was no paddy cultivation in the above property and paddy cultivation is impossible in the above property. The petitioner relies on the said certificate for the purposes of contending that permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is not necessary for construction of a building in the property. The petitioner applied for and obtained a building permit dated 28.07.2015 for the purposes of effecting a construction in the said property. While the construction activities were progressing in the said property, the petitioner was served with a stop memo dated 17.10.2016 from the Village Officer, Thodupuzha, directing him to stop further construction in the property, inter alia, on the contention that the property in question was shown as 'Nilam' in the revenue records. In WP(C) No.34954 of 2016, the petitioner challenges the said stop memo, which is produced as Ext.P6 in the said writ petition. By an order dated 1/11/2016, this Court, while admitting the writ petition, granted an interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6, making it clear that any construction carried on by the petitioner would be at his risk and subject to the result of the writ petition. It would appear that, thereafter, the petitioner continued construction based on the interim direction of this Court as referred to above. While so, the validity period of the building permit granted to the petitioner expired and the petitioner submitted an application dated 22.10.2016 for renewal of the building permit, that was originally issued to him. By a notice dated 20.01.2017, the respondent Municipality informed the petitioner that, inasmuch there had been complaints received regarding alleged encroachment by the petitioner into Puramboku land, the Municipality had referred the matter to the District Collector, and that the application for renewal could not be considered without getting further orders from the District Collector. In WP(C) No.4877 of 2017, the petitioner impugns the said notice issued by the respondent Municipality. When the said writ petition came up for admission, this Court, by an interim order dated 14.02.2017, stayed the operation of and all further proceedings pursuant to the said notice, pending disposal of the said writ petition.

(3.) WP(C) No.7124 of 2017 is filed by persons, who are stated to be social workers, and also members of a nongovernmental organisation and living within the territorial limits of the respondent Municipality. In the said writ petition, the prayer is for quashing the building permit dated 28.07.2015 issued in favour of the petitioner in the connected writ petition, for the construction of the shopping mall and for a further direction to the District Collector to consider and pass orders on a representation submitted by them, before the said authority.