The petitioner and her children are the absolute owners in possession of 0.0481 hectares of land comprised in Re-survey No.13 (old sy.no.2407/1), Re-survey Block No.29 of Yakkara village in Palakkad taluk. The petitioner submitted an application for permit to construct a commercial building in the said property before the first respondent-municipality. That application was rejected as per Ext.P4 order assigning the reason that the land in question lies within an area earmarked as residential zone and therefore, no permission could be granted for constructing commercial building. The contention of the petitioner is that in the light of Ext.P6 judgment rendered by this Court relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raju S.Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra [2005(11) SCC 222] and the Division Bench decision of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465], Ext.P4 order is unsustainable. It is the further contention of the petitioner that in the adjoining lands, commercial buildings were constructed on the strength of building permits granted by the same respondents. If the said submission is true to facts, I have no hesitation to hold that rejection of the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner can only be an invidious discrimination. There is nothing in the impugned order to show that the said aspect was considered by the respondents while passing the same. I am of the view that in such circumstances, a reconsideration of the application for building permit at the hands of the respondents is required. To enable the respondents to have such reconsideration, Ext.P4 order is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the respondents to consider the application submitted by the petitioner that culminated in Ext.P4 order and pass appropriate orders thereon after conducting a proper inspection into the property concerned.
Needless to say that during such inspection, the specific contention of the petitioner that in the adjoining lands commercial buildings were already constructed shall also be looked into. In case such constructions were already effected, certainly there is no reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner for building permit. Such inspection shall be conducted and consequential orders shall be passed expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010