The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to quash Ext.P9 and a direction to respondents to permit the petitioner to construct a residential house in his property on the strength of Ext.P2 approval of the District Town Planner and Ext.P3 building permit ignoring Ext.P10 circular.
2. Facts involved in this writ petition disclose that the petitioner acquired an extent of 5.04 cents of land in Iringapuram Village coming within Guruvayoor Municipality as per Ext.P1 sale deed No.1587/2012. The previous owner one Sri.Jose had obtained a building permit after approval by the District Town Planner as per Exts.P2 and P3. The permission was granted to construct building to Sri.Jose, though, the property was classified as paddy land as per the data bank particulars available in the revenue records. Reference to Ext.P2 dated 4.11.2011 would indicate that property is part of a padasekharam and is included in the master plan of Guruvayoor Municipality. Therefore, permission should be W.P.(C).No.29260 of 2014 2 granted only on certain conditions. It was also mentioned that the construction will be subject to Guruvayoor master plan and the restrictions imposed. On this basis, Ext.P3 building permit dated 14.12.2011 was issued to the previous owner Sri.Jose.
3. When the petitioner purchased the property, he requested for transfer of the building permit from Sri.Jose. The same was denied as per Ext.P9 indicating that the property could not have been sold for a period of 10 years as it was a property converted from paddy land. Reference is made to Ext.P10 circular dated 27.10.2012.
4. It is the submission of the petitioner that the circular has no application even assuming for the sake of argument that the same applies to the subject land. Sri.Jose has not constructed any building and the petitioner had only requested for permission to transfer the building permit which is already granted to Jose in favour of the petitioner. The restrictions in Ext.P10 applies only if the building is constructed pursuant to the permit issued by the authorities concerned.
5. The Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipality seeks time to get instructions.
6. But, having regard to the nature of contentions and nature of order, I do not think that there is any necessity to give W.P.(C).No.29260 of 2014 3 time to get instructions from the Municipality.
7. Apparently, the petitioner has purchased an item of land. When the petitioner applies for the transfer of the building permit from the previous permit holder, it cannot be denied based on Ext.P10 circular. Since no building has been constructed by Sri.Jose in the said property, the application for transfer is to be considered, taking into consideration the requirement of the petitioner and whether such a permission could be granted in accordance with law.
8. In the result, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of as under-
The petitioner is entitled to file an appropriate application for a new building permit, which shall be considered by the Municipality in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the application. In the process, the Municipality shall verify the data bank particulars available in the locality or conduct necessary site inspection as per procedure.
Stu //True copy// P.A to Judge A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.