AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Nagaresh, J.
The petitioner, who is owner of a property in Ayyanthole, Thrissur, seeks to quash Exts.P12 and P13 and to command the respondents to renew the Building Permit in accordance with the original Building Permit granted and without insisting for any further conditions other than stated in the Building Permit.
The petitioner states that he is owner of 18.42 Ares of land in Survey No.736/P of Ayyanthole Village. The petitioner submitted an application for Building Permit, which was rejected on 25.03.2015. Only after the petitioner approaching this Court filing W.P.(C) No.12835 of 2015 and RP No.802 of 2015, the 2nd respondent issued Building Permit for construction of a total plinth area of 7647.93 m².
Ext.P4 Building Permit was issued on 28.03.2017. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application for renewal of the Building Permit on 27.02.2020. The petitioner could not commence or complete the construction due to Covid-19 pandemic and other reasons. The petitioner states that though he has made a payment of ₹15,64,320/- towards construction of building for the additional floor area ratio, renewed Building Permit was not issued by the respondents.
The petitioner therefore filed W.P.(C) No.18051 of 2021. This Court directed the respondents to consider the application for renewal of Building Permit along with revised plan submitted by the petitioner, as per Ext.P11 judgment. On 04.01.2022, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P12 order permitting to renew the Building Permit by accepting renewal fees. The respondents demanded a sum of ₹9,68,080/-, as per Ext.P13. The Building Permit has not been renewed so far.
The petitioner argued that his Building Permit is liable to be renewed in accordance with the conditions in the original Building Permit granted. The 2nd respondent cannot impose further condition. This Court has directed the respondents to consider the revised plan. Only if conditions in the original Building Permit have been deviated, either changing the nature of the occupancy or exceeding the FAR or number of floors, any additional conditions can be imposed. In the petitioner's case, he has only reduced the number of floors and the plinth area. Therefore, the 2nd respondent cannot direct the petitioner to make any further payment.
Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and filed a Statement. Respondents 1 and 2 pointed out that the original Building Permit applied for was for construction of a multistoried residential apartment having plinth area of 7647.93 m² in Survey No.736/P of Ayyanthole Village. The petitioner thereafter applied for renewal of building permit. The petitioner had not even commenced the building construction during the validity of the permit. The petitioner thereafter submitted a revised plan and wanted to renew the Building Permit as per the revised plan.
The petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing on 04.01.2022. The petitioner's application for renewal was allowed with a direction to remit additional renewal fee. As per the provisions of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 2019, there has been an increase in the additional fee per square metre for the additional area exceeding FSI limit as contained in Table 6 appended to Rule 27. The petitioner has to pay an additional amount of ₹9,68,080/-. The petitioner has submitted a revised plan in accordance with the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 2019.
The additional amount was demanded after deducting the fee already paid towards the Building Permit. The petitioner's Building Permit renewal application stands allowed as per Ext.P12 order. Therefore, the writ petition is unsustainable, contended the respondents.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged non-renewal of his Building Permit. The petitioner would point out that he was issued with Ext.P4 Building Permit on 28.03.2017 and since he could not commence or complete the building construction, Ext.P5 application for renewal of Building Permit was submitted on 27.02.2020 along with Ext.P6 revised plan. The petitioner has already paid ₹15,64,320/-. The original building plan was for a total plinth area of 7647.93 m². The original plan was for construction of 18 Floors. According to the petitioner, the revised plan was for a reduced area and reduced number of floors. After hearing the petitioner, the respondents are now demanding an additional amount of ₹9,68,080/- though the total area and floors stand reduced in the revised plan, contends the petitioner.
It is to be noted that Ext.P4 Building Permit was issued on 28.03.2017 when the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1999 were in existence. The petitioner did not commence or complete the construction within the period prescribed in Ext.P4 Building Permit. The petitioner submitted application for renewal of Building Permit on 27.02.2020.
By this time, the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 2019 came into force. Though the petitioner claims that the application is for renewal of Building Permit, it has to be noted that an application was submitted for approval of a revised building plan also. Building plan subsequently submitted was for a different extent and for lesser number of floors. Such an application can be considered only as a new application for Building Permit, which will have to be considered as per the extant Building Rules. It is to be noted that the petitioner had not even commenced construction of the building as per Ext.P4 Building Permit during its currency.
The petitioner would argue that in view of Rule 15 of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, he is entitled to renewal of period of Building Permit. The petitioner indeed is entitled to renewal of Building Permit. But, the petitioner wants revision of Building Plan also. Such revision can be only considered under the KMBR, 2019. The respondents would submit that approval of Revised Plan would attract additional fee which will fall due under the KMBR, 2019. The respondents have not rejected the application for revision of Building Plan. They have only demanded additional fee. I do not find any illegality in the demand.
The petitioner relied on Ext.P15 Government Order dated 10.01.2022 to contend that if plans approved prior to 07.11.2019 were returned for revision and those plans are re-submitted and the resubmitted plans are not for larger extent of construction, then the KMBR, 1999 should be followed. In the petitioner's case, the plan was not returned for resubmission. A Building Permit was actually issued. Therefore, Ext.P15 cannot apply.
Furthermore, Ext.P15 specifically provides that if no construction has been commenced on the basis of the earlier building plan, then for changing the plans, the new Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 2019 shall be applied. Therefore, the petitioner cannot rely on Ext.P15 to contend that the application submitted by the petitioner should be treated as one for renewal of the earlier Building Permit. In such circumstances, Rule 15 of KMBR, 1999 will not apply.
The writ petition is therefore found to be of no merits and it is accordingly dismissed.