J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 10th day of October, 2022 The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents to assign Building Numbers and issue Occupancy Certificate to a number of rooms constructed by the petitioners on the 1st floor of their building.

2. The petitioners are owners in possession of 6.51 Ares of property in Re-Survey No.244/31 of Edacheri Village, Vadakara Taluk, Kozhikode District. The petitioners wanted to make construction of a commercial building in the property and applied for Building Permit. A Building Permit was granted to the 1st petitioner on 11.01.2012. As the petitioners wanted to make some addition to the existing constructions, the petitioners submitted application for additional Permit. The petitioners submit that an additional Building Permit was also granted to the 1st petitioner in the year 2013.

3. The petitioners constructed ground floor of the building.

When the petitioners gave Completion Certificate, the respondents have accepted the Completion Certificate and assigned building numbers to all the rooms in the ground floor and a few rooms on the 1st floor of the building. Thereafter, the petitioners completed the construction of the entire second floor and sought for Occupancy Certificate for remaining rooms constructed subsequently. When such an application was made, the respondents issued Ext.P5 communication wherein as many as fifteen number of defects were pointed out by the respondents. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P5.

4. The petitioners state that they are ready and willing to cure the defects pointed out by the respondents in Ext.P5. However, the defect mentioned at Serial No.10 of Ext.P5 relating to the nature of the land, cannot be cured at this stage. The petitioners submitted that the land is described as paddy land in Revenue records. The Building Permit was issued by the Corporation Authorities prior to the insertion of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 on 30.12.2017. Therefore, the petitioners, whose building construction was started as per the Building Permit obtained in the year 2012, cannot be insisted to be compliant of Section 27A of the Act, 2008. Ext.P5 order is unsustainable to that extent.

5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. Standing Counsel controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable and it is premature. If the petitioners cure the defects pointed out in Ext.P5, the Corporation Authorities are willing to assign number and issue Occupancy Certificate to the building of the petitioners.

6. The respondents pointed out many building rule violations committed by the petitioners and insisted that unless these defects are cured, no Occupancy Certificate can be issued to the remaining part of the building.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

8. Admittedly, the petitioners have obtained a Building Permit in the year 2012 and an additional Building Permit in the year 2013. Section 27A was introduced in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 only with effect from 30.12.2017. The question whether in such circumstances, for issuance of Building Permit/Occupancy Certificate, the requirements under Section 27A can be insisted, came up for consideration before a Single Bench of this Court in Leela Santu and another v. Secretary, Kothamangalam Municipality and others [2020 (4) KHC 696] and this Court held that when Building Permits were issued prior to 30.12.2017, 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 described as 'nilam/paddy land' in Revenue records.

9. I