Thasni Shajahan vs Ottapalam Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 9701 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

     TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.266 OF 2021(G)


PETITIONER:

               THASNI SHAJAHAN, AGED 40 YEARS
               W/O. MOHAMMED SHAJAHAN, PUZHAKAL HOUSE, PANDIKKAD
               P.O., ERANAD, MALAPURAM DISTRICT, 676 521.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.P.K.SOYUZ
               SRI.E.V.BABYCHAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        OTTAPALAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
               MUNICIPAL OFFICE, OTTAPALAM P.O., PIN-679 102.

      2        THE SECRETARY, OTTAPALAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL
               OFFICE, OTTAPALAM P.O., PIN-679 102.

               R1-2 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, OTTAPALAM MUNICIPALITY

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.266 OF 2021(G)

                               2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of March 2021

On the construction of a building on the strength of

Ext P5 building permit, the petitioner submitted completion

plan and applied for issuance of occupancy certificate

before the 2nd respondent-Secretary of the Municipality. As

per Ext P7, the petitioner was required to take necessary

steps for change of nature of the land in revenue records,

in form No.6 under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation

of Paddyland and Wetland Act (in short, 'the Act') upon

which alone, it was stated, the occupancy could be issued.

2. Noticeably, Ext P5 building permit was issued on

28.07.2017, ie, is prior to the introduction of Section 27A

in the Act. As such, the respondent cannot insist on

orders under Section 27A as a condition for issuance of

occupancy certificate. Law on the above has been laid down

by this Court in Cheranalloor Panchayath v. Joe Thattil,

(2020(5) KLT 763), Mahin and another v. Keezhmad Grama

Panchayath, (2020(2) KLT 478) and Leela Santu and another WP(C).No.266 OF 2021(G)

v. Secretary Kothamangalam Municipality and others (2020(4)

KLT 1011). The Government had also adopted the same stand

in Ext P8 circular dated 13.08.2018. In the circumstances,

the condition imposed in Ext P7 communication by the 2 nd

respondent cannot be countenanced.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders on the

petitioner's application for occupancy certificate and pass

appropriate orders in the light of the law referred to

supra. Let orders be passed within a period of one month

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE vdv WP(C).No.266 OF 2021(G)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.985 OF 2017 DATED 30.3.2017 OF OTTAPALAM SRO.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.373 OF 2020 DATED 4.2.2020 OF OTTAPALAM SRO.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE OTTAPALAM II VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 18.2.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK PREPARED BY TEH LLMC OF THE OTTAPALAM MUNICIPALITY.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT E2-

BA/164/12-13 DATED 28.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY DATED 21.6.2017.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.BA/164/12-13 DATED 4.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR NO.LSGD-406/R.A 1/2018-LSGD LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (R.A) DEPARTMENT DATED 13.8.2018.