(1.) The petitioners in these writ petitions are persons who had applied to the Municipalities/Panchayats in question for building permits to put up constructions on properties owned by them within the territorial limits of the respective local authorities. The lands in question were purchased by them from vendors who happened to own larger tracts of land, and from which, smaller portions were sold to the petitioners herein. The local authority rejected the applications for building permit on the ground that the land in which the construction was proposed formed part of an 'unauthorised layout', the development of which was not pursuant to any development permit obtained by the erstwhile owners of the land. The petitioners were therefore asked to produce the development permit in respect of the land for the purposes of processing their applications for building permit. The orders of the local authorities, rejecting the applications for building permit, are impugned in these writ petitions.
(2.) Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent Municipality/Panchayat, wherein, the stand taken by the said local authorities is that the property purchased by the petitioners formed part of the larger extent of property owned by the vendors of the property. Reference is made to Section 360 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, read with Rule 2(v) and Rule 27 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, which deals with the conditions to be fulfilled while developing lands in the manner prescribed, to justify the rejection of the applications for building permit.
(3.) I have heard Sri. K.P. Vijayan, Sri. K.I. Sageer Ibrahim as also Sri. P.K. Sajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions, Smt. Girija K. Gopal, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Municipality, Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Panchayat as also Sri. Paul Abraham Vakkanal, the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents in all the writ petitions.