The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P4 and P5 orders by which an application for building permit submitted by him has been rejected. The reason stated in Ext.P5 is that, the property has been described as paddy field in the title deeds of the petitioner as well as the possession certificate produced. The counsel for the petitioner points out that, a building permit had been issued to his predecessor in title by the same Municipality on 12.04.2002 for the construction of a commercial building. The permit had also been extended. However, the said person did not effect any construction on the strength of the building permit. The renewed permit is Ext.P7. In view of the above, it is contended that there is no justification for the present stand adopted in Ext.P5.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. The only contention raised is that, since the property is described as paddy field in the records, in view of Section 14 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 no permission could be granted.

3. Heard. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner's predecessor in title had been issued with Ext.P6 building permit