J U D G M E N T

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

Petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 9606 of 2021 has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.03.2022 whereby the following reliefs sought for by the appellant was declined holding that since admittedly as per the master plan the property comes within the residential zone of Perumbavoor Municipality and not under the mixed zone; and therefore the order passed by the Municipality cancelling the permit for construction of a commercial building granted to the appellant was found to be correct:- “(a) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Exts.P11 order issued by the 2nd respondent;

(b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the

2nd respondent to renew the Ext.P3 building permit;

(c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to re consider the application for renewal of building permit evidenced by Exhibit.P5 taking into account that the property of the petitioner is comprised in mixed zone as per the draft master plan prepared for the respondent municipality within a reasonable time period fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:- 3. Petitioner is the owner of an extent of 19.59 ares of land comprised in Perumbavoor Village, Kunnathunad Taluk within the limits of the Perumbavoor Municipality. It is the case of the appellant that the northern boundary of the said plot is a municipal road which is specifically stated in the title deed of the property. Initially, Secretary of the Municipality granted a building permit finding that the property is situated within the mixed zone of the draft master plan, however when the appellant applied for renewal of the permit, the Municipality rejected the same and revoked the already granted permit stating that the property is included in the residential zone as per the master plan. It was challenging Ext. P11 order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality dated 10.03.2021 cancelling the permit the writ petition was filed.

4. The learned Single Judge after considering the facts and figures projected by the parties has taken into account Rule 2(cf) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 and found that the definition of plot made thereunder cannot be understood to mean a plot including a way so as to secure the benefit of the town planning scheme for construction of a commercial building within 100 meters of a registered road.

5. The case projected by the appellant is that the northern boundary of the plot is the municipal road which is less than 100 meters from the M. C. Road and therefore is a mixed zone; however the Municipality measured up to the proposed site including the pathway and found the plot to be 130 meters away from the M.C. Road and therefore as per the master plan it is within the residential zone.

6. That apart it is submitted that even though the learned Single Judge rightly observed that the title deed describes the property as inclusive of the right of way, the learned Single Judge erroneously held that the plot cannot include a way.

7. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the appellant is that the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge to the plot defined under Rule 2(cf) is incorrect and is liable to be interfered with.

8. In fact, before the writ court, the Municipality has filed a statement along with a draft sketch showing the lie and nature of the property in question and the distance by and between the M. C. Road and the property.

9. The paramount contention advanced is that even though the Municipality has granted the permit, it was found that as per the published master plan commercial buildings up to 150 sq.m. alone is permissible in the concerned survey number as it comes under residential zone, and hence there was violation of zoning regulation. But the appellant has not commenced construction and having found that the permit was issued in viol