The Court clarified that prior judicial rulings must be considered in local authority decisions regarding land use permits.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order, to call the records leading to Ext-P6 application and Ext-P9 and P.10 order/proceedings and to quash Ext-P9 and P.10 proceedings;

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to grant building permit as per Ext-P6 Application by considering it afresh, in the light of the Ext-P2 Judgment and without insisting for order from RDO under section 27(A) of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act ;

iii. Issue an order declaring that the order from RDO under Sec. 27(A) of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act is not required for granting building permit to the petitioners in view of Ext-P.2 judgment;

iv. Issue any other writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(SIC)

2. Petitioners are the joint owners of the property covered by Ext.P1 sale certificate and they are the auction purchasers from South Indian Bank in a public auction sale. The petitioners approached the Municipal authorities for regularization of the building as per the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.18114/2023 as the earlier building permit issued in the name of the predecessor was lapsed owing to pending litigation. The respondent Municipality rejected the application saying that the property is described as ‘Nilam’/ ‘wet land’, ignoring Ext.P2 judgment in which the issue was already decided by this Court. Therefore, petitioners earlier filed WP(C) No.11196/2025 and after considering the objection filed by Municipality, this Court directed the respondents as per Ext.P8 judgment to consider the application afresh in the light of Ext.P2 judgment. Even thereafter, the respondents rejected the application with the same reason as per Exts.P9 and P10 proceedings is the grievance. According to the petitioners, the land in question is situated within the heart of the city and surrounded by various buildings, which are clearly stated in Ext.P2 judgment, and continuing as converted land even prior to 2008, namely in the year 1985 as revealed from Ext.P12 and thus land in question is entitled to come under the definition of unnotified land. The land in question need not to be converted further in any manner, as there was building situated therein even prior to 2008 is the submission. Hence this Writ Petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

4. The short point raised by the petitioners is that the findings in Ext.P2 judgment which was filed by the predecessor of the petitioners is not considered by the Municipality while deciding Exts.P9 and P10. This Court perused Ext.P2 judgment, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:

“3. Heard, counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent Municipality. It is noticed that this Court in the decision inShahanaz Shukoor V Chelannoor Grama Panchayat ( 2009 (3) KLT 899 ) and inPadmini V State of Kerala ( 1999 (3) KLT 465 ) many other decisions held that the provisions of the Kerala Conversion of Paddy and Wet Land Act has no retrospective operation and merely because the description of the land remains as paddy land, a land which is already converted cannot be termed as 'paddy land' or 'wet land' coming within the definition. contained in the said Act. It is held that the question of granting building permit need be decided on the basis of ground reality existing, through inspection to be conducted. by the Secretary of the local authority concerned. Petitioner had produced Exhibit P9 judgment wherein this Court had set aside identical orders issued by the 2nd respondent Municipality and directed