The grievance of the petitioners is against the rejection of an application submitted by them for grant of building permit to construct a commercial building in a property having an extent of 52 cents comprised in survey No.45/1 of Manjeri village. The said application was rejected as per Ext.P3 assigning the reason that the land in question lies in an area earmarked as 'public and semi public area occupancies' under the Central area DTP scheme. Essentially, the contention of the petitioners is that despite the fact that the said area is reserved for 'public and semi public occupancies', the respondents themselves have granted permits for constructing buildings in the nearby properties. It is the further contention that a cinema theatre and multi storied shopping complex have been constructed in the nearby properties. Though such a specific contention has been taken by the petitioners the said fact is not disputed in the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent. Going by Ext.P3, the application for building permit was rejected assigning the reason that the land in question lies within an area earmarked as 'public and semi public occupancies' under the Central area DTP scheme. In view of the specific contention of the petitioners that in the nearby properties cinema theatre and shopping complex were already constructed and in the absence of any denial of the said fact in the statement, I am of the view that the respondents are bound to consider the application of the petitioners afresh. This is inevitable in the light of the decision of this Court in GopalakrishnanT.V. v. State of Kerala [2011 (3) KLT 317]. In that case, the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit to construct commercial building was rejected on the ground that the area in question was earmarked as a residential zone. Taking note of the fact that the respondents themselves granted permits for constructing commercial buildings, this Court held that the area in question could not be considered any further as an area reserved exactly as a residential zone. I am of the view that the same dictum will squarely apply in this case. If commercial buildings were already constructed in the same area, the respondents cannot reject the application submitted by the petitioners assigning the reason that the land in question lies in an area earmarked as 'public and semi public area occupancies' under the Central area DTP scheme and therefore, such constructions could not be permitted within the said area. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that the application submitted by the petitioners requires a fresh consideration at the hands of the respondents. To enable the second respondent to consider the application afresh, Ext.P3 order is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioners afresh bearing in mind the decision referred (supra) and the observations made hereinbefore. This shall be done expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010