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. 32172 of 2009(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.P. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. SAIDU HAJI, KARUTHEDATH PALLIYALIL HOUSE, P.O. MELMURI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. N. ABDUL MAJEED, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.32172/2009-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER REFUSING TO GRANT BUILDING PERMIT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 29/09/08. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K. DIS. 8180/84 (G) ON 26/11/1984 ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.32172/2009-Y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality rejecting the application for construction of a commercial building on the plea that going by the Zonal Regulations, the area is included in wet agricultural land. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, that he was granted permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order as per Ext.P2 to convert the plot in question. It is further submitted that the Municipality has not implemented the scheme for the last 24 years. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465] and that of the Apex Court in Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra [2005 (11) SCC 222]. 3. Ext.P1 is passed without hearing the petitioner. The writ petitioner relies upon Ext.P2 to support on the plea that conversion has been permitted. The petitioner seeks for a direction to rehear the matter in accordance with law after considering Ext.P2 also. Hence, Ext.P1 is quashed. There will be a direction to the Secretary to reconsider the application, after hearing the petitioner and after considering various aspects including Ext.P2. W.P.(C). No.32172/2009 -:2:- The petitioner will produce all materials, which he relies upon, before the Secretary. Appropriate orders will be passed within a period of two months. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms