The court upheld that construction permits are mandatory and necessitated an inquiry into the petitioner's property title under the KDH Act before addressing eviction disputes.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner, who is a resident of Laksham Colony in KDH village of Munnar, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exts.P9, P10, P11 and P15 and quash the same so far as it is illegal and without considering the absolute right of the petitioner over his property;

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4^th respondent to consider Ext.P13 and pass orders on it without delay;

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 7^th respondent to consider Ext.P14 and pass orders on it without delay”.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of 1.21 Ares (3 cents) of land along with a commercial building bearing Door No. X-726, comprised in Sy No.62/28A of KDH Village. Before 1998, the above-mentioned land and building were under the possession and enjoyment of P.M. Rajamony, who had purchased the same from M/s Tata Finlay Ltd. vide sale deed No.625/82 of S.R.O. Devikulam. The land was a parcel of land out of which 19.40 hectares were held by Tata Finlay under the Land Board Award of 1974 and the transfer deed of 381/1977 was executed between Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company and M/s Tata Finlay Company. The petitioner has paid basic tax on the property till 2016-2017. The Munnar Panchayat had assessed building tax for the building, and the petitioner has paid building tax till 2018. The building situated on the land was damaged, and the petitioner has started renovation of the building. Petitioner was of the bona fide belief that no renovation permit was required for the renovation of an existing building to which tax had already been paid. It was during the renovation work that the petitioner came to know that a renovation permit is required for the renovation of the building. The petitioner then submitted an application for a renovation permit before the 6threspondent, and the 6threspondent directed the petitioner to apply for a No Objection Certificate before the Revenue Divisional Officer Devikulam, and assured that after getting the NOC renovation permit will be issued. In pursuance of the direction of the 6threspondent, the petitioner had approached the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer with an application for NOC. While the matter stood so, the 4threspondent issued Ext.P9 notice under the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Land) Act, 1971 (‘KDH Act’ for short), calling upon the petitioner to produce all documents pertaining to the land within two days, failing which it was intimated that steps would be taken to evict him summarily. The petitioner has sent a reply to Ext.P9 notice on 04.12.2018 along with all documents relating to his property. On 23.10.2018, the 5threspondent affixed notice No.EV/93 dated 23.10.2018 in front of the building of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has encroached the PWD land and constructed a building, and hence the action of the petitioner is illegal. On 04.12.2018, the petitioner received a communication from the 6threspondent stating that the panchayath has received a complaint that the petitioner has done illegal construction, and on enquiry, it is confirmed as correct, and the petitioner is required to remove the illegal construction. It was without considering the title