I. NIZAMUDHEEN S/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ Vs. SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPT. GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated to be in absolute ownership and possession of an extent of 80 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.354/5 and 355/3 of Kizhakkambalam village. The petitioner had in the year 2007, preferred an application for a No Objection Certificate for construction of a commercial cum residential structure. The said No Objection Certificate was issued to the petitioner on 20.05.2007. Thereafter, the Kerala Municipality Building Rules were made applicable to Panchayats with effect from 06.06.2007 and consequently the petitioner became liable to apply for a building permit as mandated under the said Rules. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an application for building permit, and was granted Ext.P2 building permit dated 15.11.2007 in connection with the construction that was proposed. Ext.P2 building permit, although dated 15.11.2007, was subsequently renewed for a period of three years with effect from 22.02.2011. The validity of the renewed building permit expired on 21.02.2014. While the petitioner did not, during the pendency of the validity of the building permit, seek an extension of the same, the petitioner by Ext.P6 application dated 30.09.2015 sought for a renewal of the application invoking the provisions of Rule 17(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent Panchayat by Ext.P7 order stating that, the files pertaining to the building permit issued to the petitioner were not traceable in the office of the respondent Panchayat. Aggrieved by the said stand of the Panchayat, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Committee of the Panchayat. By Ext.P10 order of the Committee, the appeal was considered on merits and rejected on two grounds namely, that at the time of grant of the building permit to the petitioner, there was no examination of the plan by the Assistant Engineer, or any approval granted by the said authority as mandated under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Secondly, it was noticed that, the land in Sy.No.354/5 and 355/3 was shown as 'Nilam' in the revenue records, and hence, the construction could not be permitted without getting a permission from the District Collector. Exts.P7 and P10 orders of the Secretary and the Committee of the respondent Panchayat are impugned in the writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that, of the two reasons cited in Ext.P10 order for rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the first ground namely, that the plan submitted by the petitioner had not received the approval of the Assistant Engineer, was one that could not have been used against the petitioner since, the Circular that required an approval of the plan by the Assistant Engineer was dated 23.12.2010, which was much after the grant of the building permit to the petitioner on 15.11.2007. Secondly, with regard to the other ground, relied on in Ext.P10 order to reject the appeal preferred by the petitioner namely, that the land in question was included as 'Nilam' in the revenue records, the petitioner would refer to the report of the Agricultural Officer, that was called for by this Court during the pendency of the writ petition, which clearly indicates that, the land in question is not paddy land or wetland for the purposes of inclusion in the Land Data Bank and in the said Land Data bank, the land in question is shown as converted land. It is therefore the contention of the petitioner that, Ext.P10 order cannot be sustained on the grounds indicated therein for rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Panchayat wherein the respondent Panchayat would, while supporting Ext.P10 order passed by the Committee of the Panchayat, also point out that there are various other objections, in relation to the construction put up by the petitioner, which had also weighed with the Panchayat while taking a stand against the petitioner in the matter of granting an extension of the building permit that was initially issued to him.