The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order whereby Ext.P2 application for converting the occupancy and for granting permission to effect further construction was rejected. Obviously, the said application was rejected assailing the reason that the area in which the land lies is a residential zone and therefore no permission could be granted for effecting a building for commercial purpose. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents are not justified in raising the said contentions and rejecting the application as several constructions for commercial purposes have already been effected in the adjoining lands and in the light of the decision of this Court in Gopalakrishnan V State of Kerala reported in 2011(3) KLT 317 rendered under an identical circumstances. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the second respondent and also the learned Government Pleader.
3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that since the area in question is earmarked as a residential zone under the W.P.(C) No.26579 of 2013 2 DTP Scheme permission could not be granted for effecting construction for commercial purposes. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that having granted permits to effect constructions of buildings for commercial purposes in the same area the respondents are not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner assigning the aforesaid ground and therefore, it is a clear case of inviduous discrimination. In the decision in Gopalakrishnan's case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court held that if in area earmarked as residential zone permissions to effect constructions for commercial purposes were granted the said area could not be considered thereafter as a residential area. Going by the dictum laid down in the said decision the question which was to be considered whether the characteristics of the classification was lost owing to the grant of permits for different and distinct purposes than the one for which the area in question was earmarked. There is absolute absence of consideration of such aspects in the impugned order. In the said circumstances to lend support to the said contentions that in the nearby properties buildings were constructed for commercial purposes and such buildings are still under construction the petitioner has produced Ext.P4 series. Taking note of the said contention in the light of the W.P.(C) No.26579 of 2013 3 decision of this Court in Gopalakrishnan's case (supra) I am of the view that the respondents are bound to revisit the said order. In the said circumstances, to enable the respondents reconsider the application after conducting an inspection into the property to verify its real nature as also whether constructions for commercial purposes were already effected in the adjoining lands Ext.P3 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the first respondent to conduct an inspection into the property in question and verify its real nature and also verify whether constructions for commercial purposes have been effected in the adjoining lands. Needless to say that if such constructions were already effected or such constructions are going on there will not be any justification for denying building permit to the petitioner. A decision shall be taken by the first respondent after conducting an inspection expeditiously and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.
dlk