Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to assign a building number to the building constructed by him on the strength of Ext.P3 building permit.
2. Petitioner has purchased a property as per Ext.P1 sale deed on 24.5.2004. He had thereafter applied to the first respondent for permission to construct a residential building and a shed to store the building materials to be used for the construction of the residential building. At his request, two building permits had been issued under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, of which Ext.P2 was for the construction of the residential building and Ext.P3 was for the construction of the store-shed. According to the petitioner, he has completed the construction of the store-shed and submitted the requisite application to assign a building number for the same to enable him to obtain electric and water connections in the premises. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition is that his request for assigning a building number for the building covered by Ext P3 permit is not being considered by the first respondent Municipality and that therefore he is not able to commence the construction of his residential building.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that a portion of the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed is shown as wet land and the remaining as paddy land in the data bank maintained by the authorities under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Secretary of the Panchayat, in the circumstances, directed the matter to be placed before the Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under the said Act and the matter was accordingly placed for consideration before the Local Level Monitoring Committee and that the said Committee has informed the Panchayat that they are unable to take any decision in the matter as the building constructed by the petitioner is a not a residential building. It seems that the stand of the Municipality is that since the land of the petitioner is shown in the data bank maintained under the Act, he is not entitled to erect any structure in the said land. In the counter affidavit, it is however admitted that on 8.10.2013, an Overseer attached to the Municipality inspected the site and reported that the construction has been completed in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and that the occupancy certificate sought for by the petitioner can be issued.
4. The petitioner has purchased the property in the year 2004. The recital in Ext.P1 as to the nature of the property is that it is a ‘garden land’. The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, has come into force only in the year 2008 and prior to 2008, conversion of the lands covered by the said Act, was not altogether prohibited. In Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009(3) KLT 899), this Court has held that powers under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules have to be exercised based on the actual physical condition of the land and not based on revenue records. In this case, there is no averment in the counter affidavit that the land in question is a wet land or a paddy land. The fact that the petitioner was issued a building permit by the Municipality and the building was constructed by him strictly in accordance with the building permit is not in dispute. No proceedings whatsoever has been initiated till date to revoke the building permit issued to the petitioner on any grounds whatsoever. Above all, in Heera Construction (P) Ltd. v. Corporation of Trivandrum (2008(3) KLT 553), this court has taken the view that after the construction of the building on the strength of a building permit, the Municipality cannot be heard to contend that the building permit was irregularly issued.
5. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to assign building number to the building of the petitioner covered by Ext.P3 building permit within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
tgs (true copy)