This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Ext.P3 order passed by the Respondent-Municipality declining permit for construction of a basement plus two storied building applied for by the petitioners.

2. Brief facts required for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

3. Petitioners are the owners in possession of 7.5 cents of property comprised in Re-survey No.213/2 of Thrikkandiyur Village, Malappuram District. Petitioners became vested with the said property as per registered Partition Deed bearing No.2990/1999 of the office of the Sub Registrar, Tirur. The said property was a paddy field ('nilam') earlier and immediately after the registration of the above partition deed, the same was filled up and converted as a garden land. This fact of developing the land by conversion of the same from paddy field to garden land is proved by Ext.P2 Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act No.28 of 2008 (for short, Act No.28 of 2008). It was also contended that the remaining properties abutting the property of the petitioners are all developed into garden land even at the time of the above mentioned partition deed.

4. It was further contended that in order to put up a residential building in the aforesaid property, they had applied for a building permit to the Municipality. But the Respondent Municipality rejected the application for building permit stating that the property is narrated as "Nanja" as per the possession certificate issued by the Village authorities and further that the road included in the DTP Scheme Map-I named as CC Road with 12 meters width was proposed through the property of the petitioners. Therefore, on both the above grounds, the permit sought for by the petitioners for construction of the building was declined by the Municipality as per Ext.P3 order dated 08.11.2013. It is thus aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P3 and for other related reliefs.

5. The Municipality has filed a counter affidavit virtually supporting the stand taken in Ext.P3 order and also contended that there was no illegal action on the part of the Municipality in order to grant permit to the petitioners to carry out the construction of the building proposed. What I understand from the contentions put forth by the Respondent was that since under the possession certificate, the property is described as 'Nanja', [according to Counsel for the petitioners, 'Nanja' means a low lying 'Nilam' (paddy field)] and further that there is a road proposed as per the Detailed Town Plan Scheme (D.T.P. Scheme), they are unable to grant permission to the petitioners to put up construction of the multi-storied building. The Respondent has also contended that as per the permit sought for, the building has basement plus two floors, and same is a commercial building and therefore the contention of the writ petitioners that they have submitted the application and plan for a residential building was not true or correct. It was also contended that under the D.T.P Scheme, the property of the petitioners is situated in a mixed zone and therefore they are not entitled to carry out the construction of a commercial building in the said zone.

6. Heard Sri. M.I.Johnson, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.P.K.Vijayamohanan, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality.

7. On perusal of Ext.P3 impugned order passed by the Respondent, permit was declined on two grounds:

(1) the possession certificate produced along with the application for permit shows that the property is "Nanja"; and

(2) the property for which the petitioners sought permission for construction of the building is included in the Map-I of Detailed Town Planning Scheme for the purpose of construction of a road in 12 meters width named as CC Road.

8. In order to ascertain the situation as comprehended by the Respondent in its counter affidavit, I have gone through the