SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 52229

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
ABDUL SALAM N P – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/6483/2022



A construction permit remains valid despite subsequent land reclassifications if it was issued legally and the conditions were met at the time of issuance.

Headnote:

Land - Construction Permit - Act 28 of 2008, Act 29 of 2018 - Act sections referenced relate to land classification and permits for construction, highlighting that previously issued permits must be honored despite later reclassifications.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition to challenge the rejection of a construction permit extension, asserting that the land, designated as garden land, warranted its recognition and the permit should be extended.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of a construction permit based on the land classification and the validity of prior permissions.

Ratio Decidendi: Permits granted must be respected based on prior classifications; new provisions cannot retroactively affect previously issued permits.

Final Decision: The court set aside the rejection orders and directed reconsideration of the permit extension.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of certiorari and quash Exhibit.P14 as illegal.

ii. Declare that Act 28 of 2008 or the amended Act of 29/2018 is not applicable in the case of the land of the petitioner.

iii. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the character of his land corrected as garden land in the data bank.

iv. Direct the 3rd respondent to correct the data bank so as to characterize the land of the petitioner as garden land and do the necessary correction in the Data Bank and BTR if any accordingly.

v. Direct the 5th respondent to regularize the construction of the house of the petitioner as per Exhibit.P4.

vi. Issue such other writ or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to pass in the circumstances of the case.

(SIC)

2. The petitioner purchased 5.65 cents of land in R.S.No.111/6 in Cheruvannoor Village for construction of a residential house. The 5th respondent granted permit for construction of the building by way of Ext.P4 fixing the period of permit from 20/3/2015 to 19/3/2018. The construction of building is almost completed and only final works are to be done. Ext.P6 is the photographs of the building. It is the case of the petitioner that due to paucity of funds for doing the final works, the petitioner approached the bank and they insisted the petitioner to get extension of permit time. When application for extension was filed before the 5th respondent, the same is denied by way of Exts.P7 and P8 letters holding that the records in the village shows that it is a Nanja land and advised to correct it by approaching the 2nd respondent. Accordingly Exts.P9 and P11 are filed which are rejected by 2nd respondent as per Ext.P14 based on Ext.P13 report. Hence this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner takes me through the documents produced along with the writ petition. The learned counsel submitted that the title documents show that the property of the petitioner is a garden land. Exts.P2 and P3 are the possession certificates dated 01.12.2014 and 04.05.2016. It is stated in those documents that the property is garden land. The learned counsel further submitted that even in Ext.P5 sketch, the adjacent property of the petitioner is treated as paramba. Ext.P4 is the building permit which is dated 20.03.2015. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the light of Ext.P4, the respondents erred in rejecting the application submitted under Form-5.

5. I think there is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Exts.P4 is the building permit issued to the petitioner by the Panchayat on 20.03.2015. That expired on 19.03.2018. When the petitioner submitted an application for extension, Ext.P14 order is passed. After going through the pleadings and documents produced, according to me, the findings by the Revenue Divisional Officer in Ext.P14 is unsustainable. Moreover, in Cheranelloor Grama Panchayath & Others v. Joe Thatttil [2020 (5) KLT 463], Division Bench of this Court observed like this:

“However, Secretary of the appellant Grama Panchayat was not at liberty to issue Ext.P6 notice directing the writ petitioner to secure necessary orders under Section 27A, since the said provision has come into force only with effect from 30.12.2017 while the permit was granted to the writ petitioner on 26.10.2015. Therefore, it is clear and evident that the provisions of Section 27A will not come into play in the matter of the permit granted to the writ petitioner.”

6. In this case the building permit was issued on

20.03.2015. Moreover, as evident by the possession certificate and the occupancy certificate, it is clear that the property is a garden land. The title document also shows that it is a garden land. Moreover the petitioner almost completed construction as evident by Ext.P6 photograph. At this stage, it will be an in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top