The petitioner is the owner in possession of 233/8 (sic 23.38) cents of land comprised in survey No.185/1A of Peringathur Village. He had applied and obtained Ext.P1 building permit for constructing a double storied building for commercial purposes and on the strength of the same he effected construction. After completing the construction the petitioner applied for assignment of building number and the same was rejected as per Ext.P2. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation reiterating the request for assignment of the building number. However, no steps were taken thereon. It is in the said circumstances that the captioned writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of Ext.P2 and issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to number the building constructed in the aforementioned property. 2. According to the petitioner reclamation of the property was made much prior to the coming into force of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and several mastful trees are standing in the property. At any rate, it is contended that after granting the permit the respondents would not be justified in requiring the petitioner to demolish the same or refuse to number the building which was constructed strictly in accordance with the conditions in Ext.P1 permit.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. In the counter affidavit it is stated that at the time of issuance of order the exact nature of the land was not taken into consideration. It is further stated that at that point of time the documents were not verified. It is further stated that the application was for constructing a building in a paddy field.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The indisputable position obtained from the rival contentions is that the petitioner has effected construction in the aforesaid property mentioned above only after obtaining Ext.P1 building permit. There is also no case for the respondents that the construction was effected deviating from the conditions in Ext.P1. It is obvious from Ext.P1 as also the counter affidavit that the respondents are, now, refusing to number the building solely on the reason that the construction was effected on a reclaimed land. In the context of the contention it is relevant to refer to G.O.(Ms) No.210/09/ LSGD dated 11.11.2009 published in SRO 907/2009. As per the same the residential building up to the total floor area of 200 Sq. meters could be constructed in such a reclaimed land. True that, in this case the construction was not for residential purposes but it is for commercial purposes. The total plinth area is, however, less than 200 sq meters. In fact, according to the petitioner it is less than 100 sq meters. Admittedly, an application was submitted by the petitioner for grant of permit and it was after considering the same that Ext.P1 permit was granted. In the said circumstances, I am at a loss to understand that how the respondents could be heard to contend that they had not verified the real nature of the land or perused the document related to the property in question before issuing Ext.P1 building permit and in view of the fact that construction was effected on a paddy land and therefore, building number could not be assigned. The construction in question was also over and there is no case for the respondents that the construction was effected in the midst of a large extent of cultivable land. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact on lands around the building were also reclaimed long ago and constructions were also effected thereon on the strength of permits granted by the Panchayath. Taking into account all the attending circumstances I am of the view that there is absolutely no justification for the respondents to assign such a reason, as stated in Ext.P2, for declining to number the building. In this context it is also relevant to note that even in a case where the property has been included in the draft data bank in the light of the decision of this case in Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala reported in 2014(1) KLT 774 that itself could not be a reason for refusing to grant building permit. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Jafarkhan V. K.A.Kochumakkar and others reported in 2012 (1) KHC 523 (DB). I that decision the Division Bench held that there is no justification for requiring a land owner to retain his land as waste land if surrounding properties were already reclaimed. Thus, in any view of the matter I do not find any justification in the stand taken by the respondents in view of indisputable position that the construction was effected in the aforementioned property after obtaining Ext.P1 building permit. Considering the fact that the total floor area is much less than 100 sq meters and that it was effected after obtaining Ext.P1 permit I am inclined to allow this writ petition. Consequently, Ext.P2 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for assigning the building number and pass appropriate orders thereon, expeditiously and at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.
dlk