The petitioners, brothers, own a parcel of land within the limits of the first respondent Grama Panchayat. They have obtained Exhibit P4 building permit dated 23.02.2013 to construct a commercial building. On the strength of Exhibit P4 dated 23.02.2013, they have constructed a commercial building which is visible in Exhibit P5 photographs. Thereafter, they sought for numbering the building, after submitting Exhibit P6 Completion Certificate. They have filed this writ petition complaining that the second respondent was not taking any action to number the building. 2. Advocate K.N.Mohanakannan appears for the respondents. A counter affidavit has been filed. According to the counter affidavit, Exhibit P4 building permit happened to be issued only for the reason that, in Exhibit P2 Possession Certificate, the petitioner's property has been described as garden land. It is the contention of the second respondent that, he was not aware of the description of the land in the Revenue Records. However, the petitioners subsequently produced Exhibit R1(a) Possession Certificate in which the property was described as paddy field. In view of Exhibit R1(a), a complaint was made to the Deputy Superintendent of Viglance and Anti Corruption Bureau by the second respondent. Proceedings have been initiated as evident from Exhibit R1(c). They are pending.
3. According to Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, who appears for the petitioner, the building permit Exhibit P4 was granted by the second respondent, after conducting a physical inspection of the property and finding that the property was a fully developed dry land. Exhibit P3 is the Possession Certificate issued by the then Village Officer, Koduvayoor on 04.01.2013. Therefore, the petitioners are not responsible for any error in the description of the land in Exhibit P2. Exhibit R1(a) is the Possession Certificate issued by the petitioners much later, on 02.04.2014. The petitioners are not aware of the reason for the descrepancy. It is also contended that, pursuant to the building permit Exhibit P4, the petitioners have expended money and constructed a commercial building having a row of shop rooms. There is absolutely no justification for not numbering the building.
4. The counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decisions of this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009(3) KLT 899] and Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner, [2010(2) KLT 617] to contend that the description of the land in Revenue Records is not decisive and that, it is the physical condition of the land that is material for the purpose of deciding whether a building permit should be granted or not. The second respondent had conducted an inspection of the property, verified the nature of the land and had issued the building permit. Therefore, the present stand adopted cannot be countenanced.
5. Heard. The construction in this case has been effected by the petitioners on the strength of Exhibit P4 building permit. I also notice that, there is discrepancy in the description of the land in Exhibit P4 when compared with Exhibit R1(a). How the property had come to be described as garden land in Exhibit P2, if it is actually a paddy field as per the Revenue Records is a question into which the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti corruption Bureau would have to enquire and ascertain. The petitioners disclaim complicity in the discrepancy that had occurred. The question as to whether the petitioners were involved in causing the discrepancy also would have to be investigated and found out. Until the investigation is completed, it is not possible to draw a conclusion either way. The construction of the building having already been completed expending money, cannot await completion of such an investigation. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the building is numbered provisionally by the respondents. It shall certainly be open to them, to initiate further action in the matter depending on the outcome of the investigation, that is said to be progressing.
In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to provisionally number the building that has been constructed by the petitioners. It shall certainly be open to the respondents to initiate further action in the matter, depending on the outcome of the investigation that is said to be in progress.
Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj