The petitioners are the absolute owners in possession of 40.967 cents of land comprised in Re-survey No.41/3 of Kakkanad Village in Ernakulam District. They filed this writ petition on being aggrieved by the rejection of application for building permit to construct a commercial building in the said property. That application was rejected by the respondents as per Ext.P5 on the ground that the land in question lies in an area earmarked for 'park and open space' going by the structural plan for Kochi City. It is further stated therein that going by the structural plan, permission to construct building beyond an extent of 200 sq.metres cannot not be granted. The petitioners assail the same and Ext.P6 judgment is relied on by them to lend support to their contention. It is the contention of the petitioners that commercial buildings have already been constructed in the adjoining lands and several other places in the area in question. It is ignoring the said reality that the respondents have rejected the application for building permit assigning the aforesaid reason. The contention of the petitioners is that in such circumstances, Ext.P5 cannot be sustained. To lend support to the said contention, they rely on the decision of this Court in Gopalakrishnan T.V. v. State of Kerala [2011 (3) KLT 317]. In the said case, this Court held that if large number of constructions for commercial purposes were permitted by the concerned Local Self Government Institutions in an area earmarked as a residential zone, that area could no longer be regarded as a residential area. True that in this case, area in question is earmarked as 'park and open space'. At the same time, the respondents have not disputed the fact that in the adjoining lands, on the strength of the permits granted by them, buildings were already constructed. That apart, it is contended by the petitioners that this Court had occasion to consider the grievance of similarly situated person in W.P.(C).
No.16121 of 2013. That writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment relying on plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court directing the concerned respondent authorities to consider the application for building permit of the petitioner afresh after conducting an inspection into the land in question. The learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 would also submit that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by Ext.P6 judgment. In view of the said position obtained in this case, I am of the view that the application submitted by the petitioners for building permit requires fresh consideration at the hands of the respondents in accordance with law and taking into account Ext.P6 judgment as also Gopalakrishnan's case (supra). To enable such consideration Ext.P5 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the respondents to conduct an inspection into the property in question to verify its real nature and also the fact as to whether commercial constructions were effected in the adjoining lands. After such an inspection, a decision shall be taken on the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit bearing in mind the decisions referred (supra). This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/