AZHUVALAPPIL MOHAMMED HAJI Vs. KUNHALASSAN P.

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Both these writ appeals arise out of the judgment dated 06.07.2015 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.21122 of 2014, where the appellant in W.A.No.1948 of 2016 was arrayed as a 3rd respondent. W.A.No.1709 of 2016 is preferred by a third party, stated to be residing in the neighbourhood of the writ petitioner, pursuant to the grant of leave by this Court to prefer the appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge referred to above. For the sake of convenience the reference to facts and exhibits is from W.A.No.1948 of 2016.

(3.) The petitioner in the writ petition is stated to be the absolute owner in occupation of land in Sy.No.352/3, 4 and 289/4, 5 of Panakkad village in Malappuram district. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner is also the current owner in possession of certain buildings that had been put up on the said land by his predecessor in interest. One of the buildings on the said property was used by the petitioner as a wholesale and retail sale godown and the said building was constructed pursuant to a valid building permit obtained for the same. It would appear that, subsequently, the writ petitioner wanted to change the occupancy of the building, and towards that end, he preferred an application before the respondent Municipality for a change in occupancy of the building. The said application came to be rejected by the respondent Municipality, initially on the ground that, the land on which the building stood fell within an area earmarked as paddy field under the Master Plan that was then in force. A copy of the order dated 12.03.2013 of the respondent Municipality is produced as Ext.P4 in the writ petition. The writ petitioner impugned Ext.P4 before this Court in W.P.(C).No.8375 of 2013, which was disposed by Ext.P5 judgment, where a learned Single Judge found that, inasmuch as the construction of the building was already over, the question as to whether the land was originally a paddy field or not was not at all relevant while considering an application for change of occupancy in respect of the said building. The learned Judge, therefore, quashed Ext.P4 order and directed the respondent Municipality to consider the application for occupancy change submitted by the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, and to pass orders within a month from the date of receipt of the judgment. Pursuant to the said judgment (Ext.P5), the respondent Municipality once again considered the matter and, yet again, rejected the application for change of occupancy, this time on the ground that, the Chief Town Planner had rejected the lay out plan submitted in connection with the application preferred by the petitioner. The said order of the 2 nd respondent (Ext.P6) dated 09.06.2014 was impugned by the writ petitioner in the writ petition.