The petitioner constructed a commercial building in his property on the strength of Ext.P2 building permit issued by the first respondent. According to the petitioner, the construction has been completed. However, when he requested the first respondent to allot a building number to the same, he has been informed by Ext.P3 that, no building number could be issued to his construction, for the reason that the same has been effected on a reclaimed paddy field. 2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that, he has carried out the construction on the strength of Ext.P2 building permit, in conformity with the Panchayath Building Rules that are applicable. Having granted the building permit to effect construction, it is not open to the Panchayath to refuse numbering of the building, alleging that the construction has been made on reclaimed paddy filed.
W.P.(C).No.25979 of 2014 2
3. Though notice has been served on the respondents by special messenger, there is no appearance for them. Therefore, I have heard Adv.Mathew John K., who appears for the petitioner.
4. Ext.P2 shows that, the petitioner was granted with a building permit on 3.5.2010. The contention of the petitioner is that, pursuant to the building permit, he has expended money and has put up the construction, in accordance with the terms of the building permit. Having altered his position to his disadvantage, acting on the strength of Ext.P2, it is contended that, there is no justification for the second respondent to issue Ext.P3.
5. In view of the issue of Ext.P2 building permit, if the petitioner's construction is in conformity with the terms and conditions subject to which the same was granted, there is absolutely no justification for the issue of Ext.P3. If actually the land is reclaimed paddy land, the permit sought for by the petitioner ought to have been rejected. Having granted the building permit and permitted the construction, it is not open to the respondents to refuse numbering of the building alleging that W.P.(C).No.25979 of 2014 3 the land is reclaimed paddy filed. The said reason in Ext.P3 is therefore absolutely unsustainable. They have also not sought to enter appearance or to defend their action, despite receipt of notice in this case.
In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to number the building constructed by the petitioner, provided the same has been constructed in accordance with the terms of the building permit and the Panchayat Building Rules.
sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.