The Court noted that in the judgement of Leela Santu, it was held that it was illegal on the part of the respondent local bodies to reject the occupancy certificate as they themselves had granted building permits to the respective applicants concerned without raising any objection regarding the nature of the land and the building permits had been secured much prior to the cut-off date of December 30, 2017.
The Court also observed that Section 14 of the Act is for the grant of any license or permit under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and not occupancy certificate.
“In the circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that when a citizen makes an application for Occupancy Certificate in respect of a building which was constructed as per a valid Building Permit issued prior to 30.12.2017, the respondents cannot take umbrage under Section 14 to deny Occupancy Certificate to the building on the ground that the land where the construction is made is a paddy land or wetland,” it was held.
Since the petitioners were already issued a building permit and the building was constructed strictly according to the same, the occupancy certificate will not authorise the petitioners to make any construction, the Court noted.
Therefore, the Court held that the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought and directed the respondent municipality to issue an occupancy certificate.
The petitioners were represented by advocates Sreelal N Warrier, Biju Mathew, Shan V Shine, R Lakshmi Narayan, R Ranjanie and Nevi Zacharia Mathew.
The respondents were represented by advocates CV Manuvilsan, P Benjamin Paul and A Arunkumar.
Source: Barandbench
