IMPORTANT POINT
The subject property has been converted prior to 2008 Act and building permit has been issued by the local body concerned without reference to the nature of the land and after the construction of the building the local body will be estopped from raising objections for grant of completion certificate, occupancy certificate or for grant of permit for additional construction on the ground that subject property continued to be descried as ‘nilam/paddy land’ in the BTR

JUDGMENT :

As common issues arise in both these matters, these Writ Petitions are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment. W.P.(C).No.14707/2020 is taken as the lead case for the sake of convenience.

2. The prayers in W.P.(C).No.14707/2020 are as follows:

i) Call for the entire records leading to Ext-P2 issued by respondent municipality and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order and thereby command the respondent municipality to allow the petitioner’s application for occupancy certificate, de-hors the fact that the petitioner’s property described as nilam in the basic tax register.

(iii) Grant such other reliefs which are just and necessary in the interest of justice.

3. The prayers in W.P.(C).No.2230/2020 are as follows:

“1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order declaring that the petitioner, who was issued Building Permits and commenced construction in terms of such Building Permits, prior to 30.12.2017 is not liable to seek permission from RDO under Section 27A of the Paddy & Wetland Act and pay fees prescribed thereunder.

2. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order calling for the original records leading to Exhibit P4 and set aside the same.

3. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order directing the 1st respondent to issue Occupancy Certificate to the building covered by Exhibit P2 & P2(a) Building Permits.

4. Issue such other order as is deemed fit, just and proper to safeguard the best interest of the petitioner in the circumstance of the case.”

4. In W.P(C).No.14707/2020 the petitioner’s deceased husband was earlier granted Ext.P-1 building permit dated 31.7.2017 issued by the respondent-Secretary of the Kothamangalam Municipality for extension and additional construction for having area of 792.49 sq.m. and having total plinth area of 378.41 sq.m. and later petitioner’s husband died on 4.5.2019 and that the construction has been completed strictly in accordance with the approved plan and building permit issued by the Kothamangalam Municipality and after completing the construction, on 11.3.2019 the petitioner has submitted application for completion certificate and application for occupancy certificate. As per Rule 22(3) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, the respondent-Municipality should have issued occupancy certificate within 15 days from the date of production of the completion certificate, it is urged. Since there was no response, the petitioner has submitted application dated 3.3.2020 under the Right to Information Act proceedings and thereupon the respondent has conveyed information as per Ext.P-3 dated 23.3.2020 informing that since the property is described as ‘wet land’ in the possession certificate in respect of the subject property, the occupancy certificate cannot be granted. It is this decision at Ext.P-3 that is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

5. The petitioner’s counsel would place reliance on the judgment of this Court as well as the Government Circular dated 13.8.2018 issued by the Government of Kerala in the Local Self Government Department. A copy of the said Government Circular dated 13.8.2018 has been produced as Ext.P-5 in the latter W.P.(C).No.2230/2020. The said Circular bearing No.LSGD-406/RA/2018-LSGD dated 13.8.2018 issued on behalf of the State Government in the Local Self Government Department reads as follows:

6. Whereas in W.P.(C).No.2230/2020, the petitioner is stated to be in absolute ownership and possession of the property having an extent of 29.07 Ares in Nedumbassery Village, Aluva Taluk covered by Ext.P-1 land tax receipt. According to the petitioner, the property was originally paddy field which was later converted as ‘garden land/purayidam’ as early as in the year 1999 and that the subject property has not been included in the land data bank prepared as per the S