IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11260 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VINESHKUMAR.K.K., KOLATHUR KUNNATH HOUSE, MALMURI P.O.-676 514, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER MALAPPURAM. 3. THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.ABDUL MAJEED.N SC FOR R2 AND R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.M.SURESH BABU FOR R1 AND R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.11260/2010-F ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Herein the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings whereby the application for grant of building permit for commercial purposes stands turned down by the Municipality on the basis of the Zonal regulations. Ext.P3 is the said communication. It is pointed out therein that as per the regulations, it is shown as paddy agricultural zone and, accordingly, it would violate Rule 30(1) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was permitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P4 to convert an area of 10 cents under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. It is therefore, pointed out that the same is liable to be considered by the Municipality while considering the grant of permit. It is also the case of the petitioner that the restrictions based on the Zonal regulations have never been imposed by the Municipality, as it is evident from the fact that in the nearby plots several commercial buildings have been allowed to be constructed from time to time. It is therefore, pointed out that the rejection of the application on the plea that W.P.(C). No.11260/2010 -:2:- the area has to be retained as a wet agricultural zone cannot be supported. 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out inter alia that the petitioner's land in question falls within the wet agricultural area and sufficient care has to be taken while preparing Development Plans with regard to the environmental and ecological sustenance also. As per the Zoning Regulation for wet agriculture zone of Development Plan for Malappuram, residential buildings upto 150 sq.metre of floor area and retail shops upto 100 sq.mts. of floor area are permitted with the concurrence of the District Town Planner. The petitioner's application is for construction of a commercial building having 657.23 Sq.mts. of floor area. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Municipality, it is pointed out that the Municipality is following the Zonal Regulations while considering the application for grant of permits. As per Ext.R3(a), the Government has made modifications in the Town Planning Scheme for Zoning Regulations. According to him, it is mentioned that the area in question is included in the wet agricultural zone. 5. The question is whether the Zonal Regulations were being followed by the Municipality as contended by the W.P.(C). No.11260/2010 -:3:- learned counsel for the petitioner. The requirement of the Municipality would have found a place in the Zonal Regulations. What is argued is that it was not made operational at any point of time which is evident from the fact that so many commercial buildings and residential houses have been constructed in the area. It is pointed out that as the petitioner was allowed to convert the holding as evident from Ext.P4, the same is a matter for consideration by the local authority also. 6. The petitioner seeks for a reconsideration of the application in the light of these facts. For enabling the Secretary to reconsider the matter, Ext.P3 is hereby quashed. There will be a direction to the Secretary of the Municipality to reconsider the application in the light of the various facts relied upon by the petitioner and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE