JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of September, 2021 The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by Ext.P8 order. The petitioner seeks to direct the 2nd respondent to give building number to the petitioner's building constructed in accordance with Exts.P2, P3 and P4 permit, without insisting for any certificates from the Village Office for changing the nature of the land in Basic Tax Register.

2. It is revealed from the pleadings that the petitioner has applied for a Building Permit which was granted on 04.08.2014 as per Ext.P2. By this Building Permit, the petitioner was permitted to construct a building of 299.89 m2 plinth area. The petitioner would submit that the Building Permit issued on 04.08.2014 was renewed from time to time as per Exts.P3 and P4. In fact, the Municipality permitted the petitioner to revise the original plan also enlarging the construction to 621.39 m2.

3. However, when the petitioner applied for occupancy certificate and numbering of the building which consists of residential and commercial areas, the Municipality rejected the application as per Ext.P8 on the ground that the possession certificate submitted by the petitioner shows that the property is 'nancha' land. The Secretary to the Municipality directed the petitioner to change the nature of the land in revenue records and produced proof thereon, for numbering the building. It is aggrieved by Ext.P8 that the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the Municipality has issued Building Permit and revised it, the Municipality cannot subsequently insist that the Occupancy Certificate will not be granted unless nature of the land is change in the revenue records. In such circumstances, the Municipal Authorities are bound to issue Occupancy Certificate and number the building, contended the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The learned Standing Counsel representing the

2nd respondent Municipality on the other hand submitted that though a Building Permit was issued to the petitioner in the year 2004, the Building Permit was subsequently revised resulting in substantial increase in the plinth area construction. By Ext.P9 Circular, the Local Self Government Department of the Kerala Government has required that for the Building Permit issued subsequent to 31.12.2017, if the land is described as Paddy Land/Wetland in records, the applicants should be directed to change nature of the land in revenue records. In view of Ext.P9 Circular, the 2nd respondent Municipality has no other option and direct the petitioner to make necessary changes in the revenue records. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argued that since there is substantial increase in the plinth area, Ext.P4 should be considered as a new Building Permit for this purpose.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

7. It is not disputed that the petitioner was issued with a Building Permit which is renewed twice and revised so as to enhance the plinth area. At the time of issuance of permit, no objection was raised as regards the nature of the land of the petitioner in the Possession Certificate or in the revenue records. The petitioner after building construction, when approached the 3rd respondent for Occupancy Certificate and numbering of the building for the first time, an objection was made that the petitioner has to make corrections in revenue records as the land is shown as 'nancha' land in Possession Certificate.

8. The 2nd respondent Municipality relies on Ext.P9 Circular which requires that in respect of the Building Permits issued after introduction of Section 27A in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 w.e.f. 30.12.2017, if the land is shown as paddy land or wetland in revenue records, necessary corrections will have to be made by the applicants in the Basic Tax Reg