2025:KER:24558 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 3162 OF 2025 PETITIONER/S: ABDUL MANAF, AGED 53 YEARS CHEMBALAKKATTIL HOUSE, IRINGAPURAM, KOTTAPADI, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680103 BY ADVS. ARJUN S. V.V.JOY SRUTHI RAJIT RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680101 3 THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680101 4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN – 680003 W.P.C No. 3162 of 2025 2 2025:KER:24558 5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, POOKODE VILLAGE, KRISHI BHAVAN, POOKODU, KOTTAPADI, THRISSUR, PIN - 680505 6 VILLAGE OFFICER, POOKODE, THOZHIYUR P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680520 OTHER PRESENT: Shri.V.N.Haridas, S.C, Smt.Deepa.V, G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C No. 3162 of 2025 3 2025:KER:24558 JUDGMENT The petitioner, is aggrieved by Ext.P13 order passed by the 3rd respondent herein, by which the Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner as early as on 10.07.2017, for occupancy certificate for his building, was rejected by citing three defects. The first defect was that, on examination of the construction, they found certain violations of the rules in the Kerala Municipality Building Rules 2019. Second defect pointed out was that, the petitioner had secured the building permit on 09.03.2014 and the validity of the said permit expired on 04.03.2024 and therefore occupancy certificate cannot be granted. The third defect was that, as per the plan submitted, the proposed building is having a plinth area of 5448 Sq. Ft and therefore, as the petitioner's property is converted land, he needs to pay conversion fee as contemplated under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of the Paddy Land and Wetland Act, for the plinth area in excess of 3000 Sq.Ft. 2. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances, challenging Ext.P13. It is pointed out by W.P.C No. 3162 of 2025 4 2025:KER:24558 the petitioner that, Ext.P13 is the culmination of several rounds of litigations and all the judgments and consequential orders are produced along with this writ petition. 3. I have heard, Sri.Arjun S, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.V.N Haridas, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipality and Smt. Deepa V.G, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 3 to 6 . 4. The question involved pertains to the sustainability of the Ext.P13 order and the reasons on which the application of the petitioner for occupancy certificate is rejected. As far as the first defect is concerned, the same pertains to certain violations of the statutory stipulations contained in Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019. However, the specific case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner had obtained the building permit in the year 2014 and had completed the building in the year 2017 and therefore under no circumstances, the stipulations contained in the 2019 Rules cannot be applied. I find force in the said submission. It is to be noted that even the application submitted by the petitioner for occupancy certificate is of the W.P.C No. 3162 of 2025 5 2025:KER:24558 year 2017. Therefore the 3rd respondent cannot apply the rules introduced in the year 2019 and what is relevant is only the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 on the basis of which the permit was granted. Therefore, the first defect noted in Ext.P13 is not legally sustainable. 5. When coming to the second defect, namely, the expiry of the validity of the building permit, that also cannot be accepted in view of the fact that, as observed above, the application of the petitioner which is referred to as Item No.1 in Ext.P13 order is dated 01.04.2017. It is an admitted fact that, the validity of the permit secured by the petitioner was there till 04.03.2024 and therefore the said reason also cannot be accepted, as the petitioner submitted the application for occupancy certificate during the subsistence of the building permit. 6. The third objection raised is with respect to the non- payment of conversion fee for the proposed building, as according to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has to pay the conversion fee in respect of the building as contemplated under W.P.C No. 3162 of 2025 6 2025:KER:24558 Rule 12 (9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. As far as the said requirement is concerned, It is to be noted that in Abad Builders Private Limited v. State of Kerala [2025 KLT OnLine 1033], this Court declared Rule 12 (9) read with Note 1 to Schedule of Kerala Conversion of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, as ultra vires of the provisions of the Kerala Conversion of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, to the extent it stipulates for the conversion fee for the building proposed to be constructed. Therefore, on that reason the third defect pointed out in Ext.P13 order is not legally sustainable. 7. Thus it is evident that, none of the reasons which prompted the 3rd respondent to reject the application submitted by the petitioner are reasonable and legally sustainable. Therefore, an interference is required. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P13 order with a direction to the 3rd respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner for occupancy certificate and to grant the same if it is otherwise in W.P.C No. 3162 of 2025 7 2025:KER:24558 order. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE rpk W.P.C No. 3162 of 2025 8 2025:KER:24558 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3162/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.07.2017 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD 17.04.2017 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 26044/2017 DATED 18.08.2017 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP(C).NO.5049/2018 DATED 22.07.2022 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD 03.09.2022 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN CON.CASE(C).NO.2320/2022 DATED 19.12.2022 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD 07.01.2023 Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. BA.407/13-14 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD 27.01.2023 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DTD 02.03.2023 IN WP(C).NO.5088 OF 2023 W.P.C No. 3162 of 2025 9 2025:KER:24558 Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD 10.04.2023 Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DTD 03.06.2024 IN WP(C).NO.1226 OF 2024 Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD 27.08.2024