JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16th day of September, 2022 The petitioners, who owned 25 Cents of land in Survey No.160/2 of Palluruthy Village, Kochi Taluk, have approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P8 order and seeking to direct respondents 1 and 2 to reconsider the application for Building Permit afresh, ignoring the status of the property in the Basic Tax Register.

2. The petitioners submitted an application for Building Permit. The application was rejected by the 2nd respondent- Assistant Executive Engineer as per Ext.P8 on the ground that the land of the petitioners is described as paddy land in Revenue records.

3. The petitioners would submit that the land originally was purchased by the 3rd respondent-Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) for allotment for residential purposes, under the Rameshwaram West Detailed Town Planning Scheme and therefore the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Binu Mathew Chacko [2021 (1) KLT 232] would apply. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioners’ application for Building Permit as per Ext.P8 cannot stand the scrutiny of law.

4. Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-

GCDA submitted that the land was originally purchased under the Rameshwaram West Detailed Town Planning Scheme and it was allotted to citizens for construction of residential buildings.

5. Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Municipal Corporation resisted the writ petition and submitted that the petitioners have submitted application for Building Permit for construction of a non-residential building. According to the Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, permission cannot be granted to convert the land for buildings of educational needs. The application submitted by the petitioners was therefore liable to be rejected.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, respective learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader representing the 4th respondent.

7. As the land possessed by the petitioners has been originally acquired by the GCDA for the purpose of a housing Scheme, the ratio laid down by this Court in the judgment in State of Kerala v. Binu Mathew Chacko (supra) would squarely apply. The rejection of the petitioners’ application on the basis of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, is therefore unsustainable. Ext.P8 order therefore cannot stand the scrutiny of law.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P8 and directing respondents 1 and 2 to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioners for Building Permit and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of two months, in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has pronounced only on the non-applicability of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. In view of the judgment of this Court in Binu Mathew Chacko (supra) and the application of the petitioner for Building Permit has to be considered on its merits.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE

hmh

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20162/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.

2101/2009 OF S.R.O. KOCHI DATED

13/07/2009 Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.

1677/2008 OF S.R.O. KOCHI DATED

30/12/2008 Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 3719/2019 OF S.R.O. KOCHI DATED 03/12/2019 Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 3718/2019 OF S.R.O. KOCHI DATED 03/12/2019 Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER IN THE NAME OF THE SECOND PETITIONER DATED

07/11/2020 Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT VALID UPTO 31/02/2022 DATED 1/09/2021 Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING PLAN DATED NIL Exhibit P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED

02/04/2022