The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P4 and P5 orders by which an application for building permit submitted by him has been rejected. The reason stated in Ext.P5 is that, the property has been described as paddy field in the title deeds of the petitioner as well as the possession certificate produced. The counsel for the petitioner points out that, a building permit had been issued to his predecessor in title by the same Municipality on 12.04.2002 for the construction of a commercial building. The permit had also been extended. However, the said person did not effect any construction on the strength of the building permit. The renewed permit is Ext.P7. In view of the above, it is contended that there is no justification for the present stand adopted in Ext.P5.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent.
The only contention raised is that, since the property is described as paddy field in the records, in view of Section 14 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 no permission could be granted.
3. Heard. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner's predecessor in title had been issued with Ext.P6 building permit which was subsequently renewed by Ext.P7. If the property was one with W.P.(C)No.5109 of 2014 2 respect to which permission to construct a commercial building could be issued in the year 2002, there is no reason why it should be denied at present. It is stated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that, the property of the petitioner is situate by the side of the Manjeri-Calicut Highway and that, as per the report of the Village Officer, Narukara, the property has not been included in the Data Bank. If the property has not been included in the Data Bank, prepared under the provisions of the Act 28 of 2008, the presumption is that, the land was not a paddy field as on the date of coming into force of the said enactment. Therefore, there is no justification for denying a building permit to the petitioner.
In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. Exts.P4 and P5 are set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner afresh and to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV