Court stressed the importance of updating zoning laws to reflect current land use and development, reinforcing property rights against arbitrary restrictions.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

1. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P10 and also seeking a direction to respondents 2 to 5 to issue layout approval as sought for by Ext.P5 in respect of the property having an extent of 124.69 ares (3 acres 7 cents and 984 sq.links) situated in Sy.Nos.586/1, 2, 1-2, 2-2 of Kakkanad Village, Kanayannur Taluk without again referring to the objections in Ext.P10. Petitioners have also sought for other consequential reliefs including issuance of a building permit for construction of residential villas in the said property.

2. 1^st petitioner is in ownership and possession of 120.68 ares of landed property, out of which 31.39 ares of landed property is situated in Sy.No.586/1 and 89.29 ares of landed property is situated in Sy.No.586/2 of Kakkanad Village, Kanayannur Taluk. The 2^nd petitioner is the owner of 2.1 ares of landed property situated in Sy.No.586/1-2 of the same village and the 3^rd petitioner is the owner of 1.91 ares of landed property situated in Sy.No.586/2-2 of the said village. The aforementioned properties are situated 450 metres north of info park-express way, close to smart city and infopark and surrounded by various types of buildings. To be more specific the property is situated 300 metres from a junction connecting Parakkamugal-Nilampathinjimugal and Erickal Road. The property was lying as a dry land, but in revenue records the same was classified as ‘nilam’, though the land was remaining uncultivated for the last more than 50 years. Thereupon the petitioners approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi by filing necessary application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order for the utilisation of land for other purposes. Later classification of property was changed as converted land by initiating proceedings under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act and accordingly petitioners remitted tax so assessed by the authority and initiated Exts.P4 to P4(c) tax receipts as such the nature of the property has been changed as ‘purayidom’.

3. Petitioners devised a project for establishing residential villas in the property in question. Thereupon Ext.P9 plan was prepared. Thereupon petitioners submitted Ext.P9 plan for layout approval which was rejected as per Ext.P10 contending that as per the structure of plan for Central City of Cochin property comprised in Re.Sy. No.586/1, 2, 1/2 is included in agricultural zone and therefore the application cannot be considered. It is aggrieved by Ext.P10 that the present writ petition has been filed. Petitioners submit that the issue involved in this case has already been concluded by various judgments of this Court and to substantiate the same petitioners have produced Exts.P12 to P20 judgments. Petitioners would further submit that their property is a dry land which is very much revealed from Exts.P4 to P7 series of documents, and in near vicinity no paddy land is available. Petitioners would submit that there is no meaning in imposing restriction on a dry land for utilising the same for construction. They would further submit that if the property is fit for agricultural operation and surrounded by paddy fields the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi would not have granted permission for utilisation of the land for other purposes. But permission is granted for utilising the land for other purposes, and once permission is accorded, it is highly arbitrary to impose restriction on construction since the very purpose of obtaining permission is to carry out construction activities. The area in which the property is situated is filled with various types of buildings including buildings of Info Park and Smart City. The restriction imposed