Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner is the owner in possession of the land comprised in Sy.No.3032 of Palakkad-II Village. She wanted to construct a residential house in the said property and applied to the 1st respondent with all necessary sketches and plans in accordance with the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. The 2nd respondent by Ext.P1 informed the petitioner that the application for building permit cannot be considered as the area comes within 'Kalvakulam Scheme' under the DTP Scheme prepared by the Municipality and the area is earmarked for park and open space. So, the building permit cannot be granted for the construction of a residential building. Ext.P1 was challenged before this Court in W.P.(c) No.18930/15 and this Court set aside the same and directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the petitioner's application for building permit within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Consequently, the 2nd respondent again considered the application and rejected the same, by Ext.P3 orde,r stating that the description of the property in the revenue records is 'wetland' and the Municipality cannot grant exemption in the Master Plan which is being considered by the Government for approval. It is also stated that earlier, the building permit was granted for commercial buildings only and the present application is one for residential purpose and it cannot be allowed. It is with this background, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing this writ petition with a prayer to set aside Ext.P3 and issue a direction to the 2nd respondent to grant building permit to the petitioner for the construction of the residential building.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Going by Ext.P3, it is seen that the building permit has been rejected mainly on the reason that exemption cannot be granted in an approved DTP Scheme prepared and sent for approval of the Government. Though, the Master Plan was drafted in the year 1986, the same has not been implemented so far, even after the lapse of more than 25 years and even now the draft plan is pending consideration of the Government. The question, whether the building permit can be rejected on the basis of the Master Plan, which was not come into force, was considered by the Supreme Court in the following decisions.

4. Raju S. Jetmalani v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [(2005) 11 SCC 222] and Nazar v. Malappuram Municipality [2009(3) KLT 92] and Saidu P. v. State of Kerala and Ors. [2010 (3) KHC 974] and Gopalakrishnan T.V. v. State of Kerala and Ors.[2011 (3) KHC 162].

5. The decision laid down by the Supreme Court in Raju S. Jetmalani's case (Supra) assumes significance and relevancy in the instant case. In the above decision, the Apex Court held that land belonging to private individuals cannot be included in development plans unless a land is acquired by the State Government or the Municipal Corporation. The State Government cannot deprive the land owner of beneficially using his property under the guise of DTP scheme, when no steps have been taken to actually implement the scheme. Further, in Nazar v. Malappuram Municipality [2009(3) KLT 92], this Court held as follows:

8. In the light of the proposition laid down in the above decisions, it can be held that the building permit cannot be rejected on the basis of, the DTP Scheme, which is being considered by the Government for approval or the Master Plan which was prepared years back and has not been implemented so far.

9. Secondly, it is stated that the property is shown as 'wetland' in the revenue records. Going by Ext.P3, the 2nd respondent has no case that the property lies as 'paddy land' or wetland' or the same was reclaimed or converted after the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act'). The question whether building permit can be denied merely on the basis of the description in the revenue records as 'Nilam' or 'wetland' was considered by this Court in various decisions which are given below: