Court emphasized harmonious interpretation of statutes governing land use rights and construction permits.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“I. To Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order, writ or direction directing the respondents to pass orders allowing Exhibit P3 application submitted by the petitioner.

II. To Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order, writ or direction directing the respondent Municipal Corporation to process the Ext. P3 application filed by the petitioner for building permit, afresh, also taking into account the benefits extended by the Ext.P2, as expeditiously as possible in a time frame set by this Honourable Court.

III. to pass such other writ order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;”[SIC]

2. Petitioner is the owner of an extent of 2.43 Ares of land in Re-survey No. 246/7 Feroke village, Kozhikode district, is the submission. In the revenue records, the property is shown as a paddy land and the petitioner submitted an application in Form – 6 in accordance with theKerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 before the authorised officer and the same was allowed as per Ext.P2. The petitioner submitted an application before the 2ndrespondent for constructing a commercial building of 171 square meter. The 2ndrespondent rejected the said application stating the reason that the land situates in “Wet agricultural, medium risk zone” and a proposed road widening scheme is there on the southern side of the property. Ext.P4 is the letter issued by the 2ndrespondent rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation.

4. This Court perused Ext.P4. Two reasons are mentioned in Ext.P4 for rejecting the application. The first reason is that the property is included in the “Wet agricultural, medium risk zone” as per the master plan for Kozhikode City - 2040. This Court in P.P. Manoj Kumar v. The Secretary, Thalassery Municipality [ 2025 (4) KLT 826 ] considered a similar issue. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:

“4. True, with reference to the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules,1999 in comparison to the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act , 2016, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Regional Town Planner (supra), has found that future constructions have to be made with specific reference to the terms of the development scheme, unless and until, the scheme is varied by the State Government, in accordance with the Provisions of the , 2016. Therefore, at first blush, the learned counsel for the Municipality is justified in relying on the afore judgment, when he seeks to sustain the proceedings at Ext.P3.

5. At the same time, this Court notices the findings in Falcon Infrastructures Ltd. (supra). That was a case where the Division Bench considered the purport of the Act and the Kerala Land Reforms Act , 1963, finding as under: -

"9. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that the exemption that is granted to the writ petitioner under the Kerala Land Reforms Act , is with a specific condition that the exemption will enure to him only so long as he utilises the land for the specific purposes, for which the exemption is granted. The exemption granted in respect of 24.5 Acres of land, mandates that the land in question must be used for commercial / industrial purposes and not for any other purpose. This would mean that if the writ petitioner decides to use the land for any other purpose, he would stand to lose the benefit of the exemption granted by the Government from t