Petitioner and his wife are the owners in possession

of an extent of 8 cents of land situate in old Survey

No.2890/3, within the limits of the 1^st

respondent,

Municipality. According to the petitioner, petitioner has

secured Ext.P2 permission from the Revenue Divisional

Officer as early as in 29.5.1992, for utilization of the

property for other purposes, other than paddy cultivation

and agricultural operations. Even though a compound wall

was constructed and the land was developed, construction of

the residential building could not be carried out, since

the petitioner was away in connection with the employment.

Anyhow, the property was included in the data bank,

constituted as per the provisions of the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for

short, 'the Act, 2008').

2.

Thereupon petitioner has submitted an application

seeking removal of the property from data bank and has

secured Ext.P4 judgment dated 6.7.2018 from this Court,

directing the Local Level Monitoring Committee to consider

the said application. Thereafter, the Local Level

Monitoring Committee considered the said application and

has decided as per Ext.P5 to remove the property from the

data bank. The immediate grievance pointed out by the

petitioner in this writ petition is that, when a building

permit application was submitted before the Secretary of

the 1^st respondent Municipality, the same was forwarded to

the Town Planner and the Town Planer has declined the

permission as per Ext.P6 order dated 10.12.2018, assigning

various reasons under Act, 2008. It is thus challenging

Ext.P6 and seeking other consequential reliefs, this writ

petition is filed.

3.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner,

learned Government Pleader as well as the Learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent Municipality and

perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

4.

In view of Exts.P2 and P5 orders, secured by the

petitioner from the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as

the Local Level Monitoring Committee, the application has

to be considered by the Secretary of the Municipality, in

terms of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999

(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1999' for short). In my

considered view, there was no reason for the Secretary of

the Municipality to forward the application for

construction of the nature sought for by the petitioner, to

the District Town Planner and the District Town Planner is

not vested with any powers under Rules, 1999 to entertain

any such reference, and direct the Secretary of the

Municipality to take any action in the application

submitted by the petitioner.

5.

That being the situation, I am of the considered

opinion that, Ext.P6 suffers from

the vice of

arbitrariness and illegality and susceptible to be

interfered by this Court, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. Therefore, I quash Ext.P6 and

direct the Secretary of the Municipality to consider the

application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with

law, also taking into account, Exts.P2 and P5 orders passed

by the statutory authorities, referred to above, at the

earliest, and at any rate, within a month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. Before parting with

the judgment, I record the submission made by the learned

Government Pleader that in accordance with the instructions

received from the statutory authorities, the property in

5

question is part of a sanctioned master plan, prevailing in

the Municipality. This is recorded.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

ska

28.1.19

6

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1

A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE

DATED 13/10/2017 RELATING TO THE PLOT.

EXHIBIT P2

A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS IN THIS REGARD

DATED MAY 29,1992 ISSUED BY THE 2ND

RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3

A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED JANUARY 29,

2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT