The petitioner who is the owner in possession of 3 cents of property comprised in Re-survey No.155/3B (old Survey No.251/7) of Peringathur Village filed this writ petition seeking quashment of Exts.P3 and P8 orders and for allied reliefs. Admittedly, the petitioner effected construction of a commercial building after making an application for building permit and obtaining a building permit viz., Ext.P2. After effecting construction on the strength of Ext.P2 building permit the petitioner submitted an application for assignment of building number. After considering that application it was dismissed as per Ext.P3 assigning the reason that the construction was effected on a paddy land. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 representation dated 20.1.2014 before the second respondent. That application was rejected as per Ext.P8 reiterating the same reason.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. WP(C).No.5216/2014 2
3. The contention of the petitioner that he had constructed the building for commercial purposes in the property comprised in the aforesaid survey number after obtaining Ext.P2 building permit is not in dispute. The contention that after completing the construction the petitioner submitted an application for assignment of the building number is also not in dispute. In fact, it was that application which was rejected as per Ext.P3. Obviously, the application for assignment of building number was rejected assigning the reason that the building was constructed on a paddy field or wet land. When there is no case for the respondents that the petitioner had effected construction without obtaining a building permit or that Ext.P2 building permit was obtained by playing fraud the respondents cannot be heard to say that they would not consider the application for assignment of building number assigning such a reason, as referred above. The issue whether construction was sought to be effected on a paddy field and whether on that account permission sought for should be declined were matters which should have been considered at the time of consideration of the application for building permit. Having granted Ext.P2 building permit at the time of consideration of the application for assignment of building number on production of the completion certificate the respondents cannot refuse to WP(C).No.5216/2014 3 assign building number taking up such a contention. That apart, the specific contention of the petitioner is that the property whereon he constructed the aforesaid building is essentially a pucca garden land for the past 40 years or thereabouts. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that yielding coconut trees aged between 40 - 50 years and also arecanut trees are standing in the property. To lend support to the said contention the petitioner has produced Exts.P4 and P5 photographs. The petitioner is also having a contention that construction for commercial purpose were effected in the adjoining lands, as well. If the said contentions are true to facts I am of the view that there is no reason for rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for assignment of the building number. The petitioner is also relying on Ext.P6 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.19951 of 2012 to contend that after granting a building permit upon completion of the construction the concerned authority could not be heard to contend that the building number could not be assigned as the land in question is described as paddy field in the records. In view of the contentions referred to hereinbefore and upon perusing Ext.P6 judgment I am of the view that the respondents are bound to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner for assignment of building number after conducting an inspection into the WP(C).No.5216/2014 4 property concerned to know its real nature and to see whether yielding trees are standing in the said property. While conducting such an inspection the fact whether constructions for commercial purposes were effected in the adjoining lands shall also be ascertained. In the said circumstances, Exts.P3 and P8 are set aside to enable the second respondent to consider the application afresh after conducting such an inspection and bearing in mind the observations made hereinbefore. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS