IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 21716 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.C.BABU, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.CHATHAN, KARALATHUKARAN HOUSE, PULLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT: ------------- MURIYAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MURIYAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 21716 OF 2008 I = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of August 2008 J U D G M E N T Even though notice has been served, there is no appearance for the respondent. 2. The complaint in this writ petition is regarding the alleged refusal of the 1st respondent to accept Ext. P5 application of the petitioner for a building permit. According to counsel for the petitioner, the reason for the non-acceptance of his application is that in the revenue records the land in question has been described as paddy field. Learned counsel referred to me Ext. P1 title deed of 20.1.2006 where the land is shown as garden land. He also refers to Ext. P2 tax receipt and Ext. P3 ownership certificate of a building which is already there in the land in question. 3. Counsel submits that the land is a fully developed garden land and its conversion, if at all, has taken place long in the past and that the entries in the revenue records are totally unrelated to W.P.(C) No. 21716 OF 2008 -2- the factual situation as it is obtaining today. 4. Counsel also refers to me the judgments of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 4357/08 and 21150/08. 5. If as stated by the petitioner, as described in Ext. P1 title deed, the land is a garden land where there is already a building in existence the entry in the revenue records cannot be accepted as one reflecting the ground reality. Therefore, I do not find any justification for the respondent's refusal to accept Ext. P5. In my view Ext. P5 application has to be accepted and dealt with on merits. This, the respondent shall do on the production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-