The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application for the issue of a building permit to construct a residential house. According to the petitioner, he had purchased an extent of 2.43 Ares of land as per Ext.P1 in the year 2012 for the purpose of constructing a residential building. The property was part of a larger extent of a land owned by his predecessor in title. His predecessor in title had submitted a plan for developing the land by dividing the same into separate plots. His plan was to construct separate houses therein. However, the plan for developing the land is stated to have been dropped. The petitioner has subsequently purchased one of the plots and submitted an application for the grant of a building permit. It is the case of the petitioner that no subdivision or development of the land is involved. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate directions for the grant of a building permit to him. Though the petitioner had caused the issue of a notice through his lawyer, Ext.P5 to the 2nd respondent, the same has been replied through Ext.P6 stating that, it was not possible to issue any permission to the petitioner to construct a house in the property.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent.
According to the statement, upon receipt of the petitioner's W.P.(C) No.2788 of 2014 2 application, a site inspection was conducted by the Panchayat authorities whereupon, it was found that unauthorised land development had been carried out. The above fact was communicated to the petitioner also. Therefore, the petitioner has been directed to submit a plan for approval of the lay out, which he had not submitted. It is for the said reason that his application has not been allowed.
3. Heard. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is the owner of only a small portion of land. He does not require to develop the land or to divide the same into different plots. He only wants to construct a residential house therein. Therefore, Rule 31 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 relied upon by the Panchayat has no application to his case. According to the learned counsel for the Panchayat on the other hand, originally the petitioner's property was part of a larger extent of land. The land has been converted by his predecessor unauthorisedly and by indiscriminately filling up the same. A report was obtained in this connection by the Panchayat, after having the property inspected. No application for regularising the development process that was conducted was also submitted to the Panchayat. The ploy of selling unauthorizedly converted land to different purchasers in small portions, is only to overreach the provisions of law.
W.P.(C) No.2788 of 2014 3
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, I am not satisfied that any of the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition could be granted. It is true that the petitioner has purchased only a small plot of land but, according to the Panchayat a large extent of land has been converted and filled up unauthorizedly, without obtaining any development permit from the Panchayat. The petitioner also admits in the writ petition that, his predecessor in interest had proposed to fill up the entire land and to divide the same into separate plots. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is only one in the line up of persons to whom the unauthorisedly filled up property has been or is likely to be sold by the developer. In view of the above, the stand adopted by the Panchayat cannot be found fault with. If the petitioner is desirous of putting up a construction in his property, it is for him to persuade the developer to comply with the provisions of law and to regularise the conversion effected by him. In the alternative, the petitioner could also sue his predecessor in title for damages for having sold such a property to him.
For the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV