SATHISH B Vs. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P9 by which the first respondent Municipality rejected the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner. The reasons stated in Ext.P9 are threefold:

(2.) As per the averments in the writ petition, the property of the petitioner admeasuring 5 Ares covered by Ext.P1 document has been dry land since time immemorial. However, the property was wrongly described as 'nilam' in the revenue records. Even though, at the instance of the previous owner of the property, a large tract of land including the petitioner's property, was declared as "land not cultivated with paddy for the past 50 years and thus not subject to the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation (KLU) order", the land was included in the draft data bank as 'paddy land'. Even though an application for rectifying the anomaly was submitted before the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), no action was taken and hence, W.P.(C) No.36755 of 2017 was filed. By Ext.P2 judgment, this Court allowed the writ petition directing the LLMC to take a decision in the light of the orders by which the property was declared to have been converted as dry land prior to the KLU Order. Again the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.1869 of 2018, when the first respondent Municipality refused to take a decision on the application for building permit. By Ext.P4, this Court disposed the writ petition directing the LLMC to pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner within six weeks, without seeking the assistance of KSREC, since in the previous judgment, it was already found that the petitioner's land is neither paddy land nor wet land. It was further directed that on the petitioner producing a copy of the order passed by the LLMC, the first respondent Municipality shall consider the same and pass orders on the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner was also permitted to produce the order to be passed by the LLMC, together with the orders obtained under the KLU Order, before the Land Tax Authorities for causing a fresh assessment and consequential change in classification of the land in the basic tax register. Appeal filed against Ext.P4 judgment by the LLMC was dismissed by Ext.P5, specifically noting that the land in the case was included in the data bank by mistake and therefore, it is only appropriate that the mistake is corrected at the earliest. Finally, the LLMC issued proceedings removing the petitioner's properties from the data bank. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a revised building permit, which stands rejected as per Ext.P9.

(3.) The petitioner challenges the findings in Ext.P9 on the ground that his property is lying as dry land, which fact has been accepted in Exts.P3 and P4 judgments and therefore, a separate lay out development permit is not required. The other ground of challenge is that rejection of the application for building permit, based on a master plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Town Planning Act which has become obsolete, is illegal. Challenge is also made on the ground that even though one of the reasons stated in Exhibit P9 is that the plan is not in accordance with the provisions of the KMBR, it is not stated as to which provision of the KMBR is violated.