Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6082
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
MUHAMMEDKUTTY – Appellant
Versus
MANNARKKAD MUNICIPALITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2516 OF 2021
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Civil Rights in Land Use
Act Referred
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.R.RAMADAS
For the Respondents: SRI. P.R.VENKATESH, SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to completion certificate rejection based on property classification. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's observation on prior building permit validity. (Para 3) |
| 3. issuance of completion certificate directed. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 order, whereby the request by the petitioner for completion certificate has been rejected stating that the property is shown as ‘nancha’ in the revenue records.
2. It is averred that the petitioner has constructed a building as per Ext.P1 building permit issued by the local authority dated 09.06.2015. The petitioner completed the construction of the building in accordance with the building permit and thereafter applied for a completion certificate, which has been rejected as per Ext.P2. The petitioner submits that the property has not been included in the data bank and that his application has been rejected by the authorities stating that necessary permission as provided under Section 27A has to be obtained by him. The petitioner also submits that the issue is covered in his favour by the judgment of this Court in Global Education Trust v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2020 (6) KHC 538 ], wherein this Court has held that Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Act and Wetland Act , 2008(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2008’)cannot be insisted in respect of a land already utilised by constructing building prior to incorporation of 27A to the Act, 2008.
3. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, especially the fact that the property is not included in the data bank and the construction has been undertaken by the petitioner strictly in accordance with Ext.P1 building permit, which has been issued much prior to the incorporation of Section 27A in the statute, I am of the view that the stand taken by the respondent Municipality in Ext.P2 is liable to be interfered with.
4. Accordingly, Ext.P2 is set aside with a consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to issue the completion certificate to the petitioner, in respect of the building constructed by him, if the same is constructed strictly in accordance with Ext.P1 building permit issued by the local authority.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
