Manjula Chellur, J.

1. The appellant herein was the writ petitioner before learned Single Judge, who is aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 23.10.2013.

2. It is not in dispute that the appellant/petitioner was the owner of 5 cents of property in Survey No.173/3 of Puthukad Village of Palakkad District. As per the revenue records, it is described as 'Nilam'. Therefore, he approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad seeking conversion of land for construction of a residential building. Admittedly, as per Ext.P3, such permission was granted by RDO, Palakkad by virtue of provisions of Kerala Land Utilisation Order of 1967. It is not in dispute that such permission was granted subject to condition that it should be utilised for the purpose for which it is granted apart from other conditions. In the remaining land he was directed to cultivate paddy.

3. Apparently, appellant constructed a building in this 5 cents of land i.e., four shop rooms in the ground floor and a residential building in the first floor. This came to be assessed for building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 as per Ext.P4 and tax was also paid for 3 to 4 years subsequently. The shop rooms were numbered which is also evident from Ext.P 9. Subsequently, in the year 2013, proceedings were initiated to cancel the numbers which were allotted to the building. The 1st respondent directed that the building numbers given to the petitioner is cancelled as the construction of the building is in violation of the conditions stipulated under Ext.P3 order. Subsequently, petitioner/appellant approached 3rd respondent seeking regularization of the construction as per Ext.P7. Challenging Exts.P5 and P6, writ petition came to be filed seeking following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction and quash Exhibit.P5 & P6, Communications.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction and direct the 03rd respondent to regularise and number the petitioner's building constructed in the Exhibit.P1, property and

(iii) Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice.”

4. The stand of writ petitioner before learned Single Judge was that the entire surrounding area in the locality is occupied by buildings and several buildings are used for commercial purposes apart from residential purpose also. A specific stand was taken that in the locality no property is cultivated by paddy crop. Therefore, the conditions in the locality indicates, there is considerable change, i.e. most of the properties have lost its agricultural character. Hence, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the obligation that he should put up only residential building in the property in question. Apart from challenging Exts.P5 and P6 on merits, they have also raised ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

5. Learned Judge, on going through the contents of Ext.P3 order, opined that certain conditions were stipulated therein and petitioner, without seeking variance of the same at any point of time, has constructed commercial shops instead of adhering to the condition of putting up only residential building. According to learned Judge, the construction put up was impermissible as per the permission granted in Ext.P3 and when Ext.P3 was subject to certain conditions, said conditions have to be complied with. Therefore, learned Single Judge opined that either all the conditions have to be complied with or he ought to have challenged Ext.P3.

6. On perusal of the entire papers especially the relevant permission at Exts.P3, P5 and P6, including the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, we note that at the relevant point of time Kerala Municipal Building Rules were not made applicable to Panchayats. They were made applicable only from 2011 onwards. Subsequently, so far as buildings coming within the P