The court ruled that compliance with land classification regulations is essential for issuing occupancy certificates, emphasizing that prior reclassification of land should not obstruct lawful construction.

JUDGMENT

W.P.(C)No.42127 of 2018 is filed by the additional 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.24170 of 2021, seeking a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to inspect the property of the 5^th respondent, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.24170 of 2021 and initiate proceedings against the violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short ‘the Act, 2008’). The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the 5^th respondent has obtained a building permit for the construction of a building in Re. Sy. No.266/14 of Karukutty Village and has made construction in the property comprised in Re. Sy. No.266/13, which is included as ‘nilam’, as evident from Ext.P2. Though several complaints were made, no action has been taken for violation of the provisions of the Act, 2008.

2. W.P.(C) No.24170 of 2021 is filed aggrieved by Ext.P19 order, whereby the petitioner was informed that the application for occupancy certificate can be considered only after obtaining necessary orders from the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding the change of nature of land having an extent of 6.20 Ares comprised in Sy. No.266/13. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner owns a property having an extent of 8.72 Ares in Re.Sy.No.266/13 and Re.Sy.No.266/14 in Block No. III of Karukutty Village, obtained as per Exts.P1 to P3 sale deeds. The petitioner has constructed a three storied commercial building in the said property after obtaining necessary building permit from the 2^nd respondent and the building has been constructed strictly in accordance with Exts.P10 and P11 building permits and the 2^nd respondent, after due verification, has assigned building numbers XVI/253A, XVI/253B and XVI/253C to each of the three floors of the building. The petitioner submits that he has been remitting property tax in respect of the said building to the Municipality from June, 2017 onwards, as evident from Exts.P14 series tax receipts. However, at the time of assigning building number to the building, an occupancy certificate in paper form as mandated under Rule 25(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 was omitted to be issued by the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner submits that the occupancy certificate in paper form is required by the petitioner for letting out the building on lease and for having the lease deed registered. Thereupon Ext.P18 request was submitted by the petitioner before the 2^nd respondent for the issuance of the occupancy certificate in paper form, which was rejected as per Ext.P19 order, stating that the same can be considered only after obtaining necessary orders from the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, regarding change of classification of the land from ‘nilam’. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the additional 5^th respondent, who is the neighbouring property owner and the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.42127 of 2018, wherein it is submitted that though sanction was granted by the competent authority for construction only in Sy.No.266/14 of Karukutty Village, which is a dry land, the petitioner extended the said construction upon the property of in Sy.No.266/13 of Karukutty Village, which is a wetland as per the revenue records and by doing so, the petitioner has violated the conditions in the permit and further that, there is violation of the provisions of the Act, 2008 and in view of the above said violation, no occupancy certificate could be issued to the petitioner and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition