IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 26121 of 2007(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- AKKUNNUMMEL APPUNNI, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 59 YEARS, AKKUNNUMMEL HOUSE, MANKADA, PALLIPPURAM P.O., (VIA) KOTTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TOWN PLANNING, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 26121 OF 2007 I ==================== Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had applied for a building permit to the 4th respondent Municipality. That was turned down by Ext.P4 order. In Ext.P4, reliance is placed on a DTP Scheme and also non production of an order under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. But then, when the case was taken up for hearing, considering the fact that in several similar cases, ignoring the DTP Scheme, relief has been granted to similar applicants, arguments were addressed by both sides mainly on the production of a certificate under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. 2. According to the Municipality, even going by the possession certificate produced by the petitioner, the land in question is wet land. Counsel for the Municipality is also referring to the schedule to Ext.P1 document in terms of which the petitioner has acquired title over the property in question and submits that the land is described as a wet land. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, he submits that he is willing to approach the authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order by making WPC 26121/07 :2 : an appropriate application and that such an application can be made only after getting building permit from the Municipality. 3. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, I am not able to understand why for making an application under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, a building permit is a condition precedent. In my view, once an order under the Kerala Land Utilisation order is obtained by an applicant, it is only thereafter can he approach the Municipality for a building permit. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has a case that the land in question is already converted, that again is a matter for the authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order to consider as and when application to be made by the petitioner is considered. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. 5. That it will be open to the petitioner to approach the authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order for an order in respect of the land in question for construction of his residential building. On production of an order under the Kerala Land Utilisation order, WPC 26121/07 :3 : the Municipality shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner ignoring the pending DTP Scheme and consistent with the documents so produced by the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp