IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13491 of 2011(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ABDUL KAREEM.K.K., S/O.KUNHIMOHAMMED, RESIDING AT KARUMATHU VALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.PORKULAM,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.MATHEWS RAJU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KUNNAMULAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUNNAMKULAM P.O., THRISSUR-PIN- 680 503. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR-680 001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJITH, SC,KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.13491 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is having an extent of 0.4235 Hectares of land in Re.Sy.No.7/4,5,17 and 18 of Chowannur village in Thrissur District. Earlier, he had applied before the second respondent for permission to reclaim the said land. After conducting appropriate enquiry through officers, as per Ext.P1, the second respondent granted permission to the petitioner under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (for short 'the K.L.U'). It is evident from Ext.P1 that such a permission was granted with certain conditions. That apart, permission was granted as per Ext.P1 for constructing a residential house and a workshop. However, the petitioner, on forming an opinion that construction of a workshop would not be profitable to him thought it fit to construct a commercial building in the said property and accordingly, submitted an application before the first respondent seeking permission to construct a seven storied commercial building in the said property based on Ext.P1 order. The said application was rejected as per Ext.P2 holding that on the strength of Ext.P1, the request of the petitioner could not be granted. It is challenging Ext.P2 W.P.(C) NO.13491/2011 2 order and seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to grant building permit without insisting for fresh permission in place of Ext.P1, that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. Evidently, as per Ext.P1 order, permission for constructing a residential house and a workshop was granted in favour of the petitioner with certain conditions. One of the conditions is that such construction shall not affect the free flow of water channels. The first respondent is of the view that an order granting permission to construct a residential house and a workshop with certain conditions issued by the second respondent under the K.L.U order cannot form the basis for granting permission for constructing a seven storied commercial building. It is in the said circumstances that the first respondent required the petitioner to obtain fresh permission under the K.L.U order from the second respondent in case the petitioner is desirous to construct a seven storied building in the property in question. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to my attention the decision of this Court in Mohanan v. R.D.O reported in 2010 (3) KLT 67. That was a case W.P.(C) NO.13491/2011 3 wherein the question whether extension of validity of an order already passed under the K.L.U order could be effected after the coming into force of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 was considered among other questions. After considering the rival contentions, it was held therein that permission granted prior to the commencement of Act 28/2008 could be extended even after commencement of Act 28/2008. A perusal of Ext.P1 would reveal that in the case on hand, no specific period has been fixed. However, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the said decision to contend that if the question of extension of period could be considered by the competent authority even after coming into force of Act 28/2008, the question of changing the very purpose for which such permission was granted could be changed also falls within the competency of the very same authority even after the coming into force of Act 28/2008. I am of the view that such a question need not be considered by this Court at this stage as the second respondent has not so far been approached with such a request. At the first instance, the petitioner has to approach the competent authority with such a request. In fact, a perusal of Ext.P2 would reveal that the first respondent required the petitioner only to take such a step and W.P.(C) NO.13491/2011 4 obtain appropriate orders. Taking into account the said circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of as hereunder:- It will be open to the petitioner to approach the second respondent for considering the request for changing the purpose for which Ext.P1 was issued and seeking permission to reclaim land for construction of a commercial building. In case the petitioner approaches the second respondent with such a request, the same shall be considered by the second respondent, in accordance with law, expeditiously and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of its receipt. It will be open to the petitioner to file fresh application seeking issuance of building permit based on the decision of the second respondent. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc //true copy// P.A. to Judge W.P.(C) NO.13491/2011 5 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.13491/2011 6