IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 5115 of 2010(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- ABDULLA, AGED 70 YEARS,S/O.LATE VEERAN, PALLIYALI PEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, MELMURI.P.O, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM. RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.ABDUL MAJEED,S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 5115 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the owner in absolute possession of 15 cents of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.177/6 of Melmuri village filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P1 order. The further prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to issue building permit to the petitioner on the basis of the sketch and plan submitted by him. Ext.P1 would reveal that the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that in the master plan sanctioned by the Government, the aforesaid property has been described as paddy field. The contention of the petitioner is that as early as on 31.10.1986, he has obtained Ext.P2 permission for reclaiming the land in question. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation order, 1967. As per the same, the petitioner was granted permission to convert the land in question. The specific contention of the petitioner is that on the strength of Ext.P2, the property comprised in the aforesaid survey number was converted as dry land more than 20 years back. This aspect was not considered by the respondent while passing W.P.(C) NO.5115/2010 2 Ext.P1. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. A scanning of Ext.P1 would reveal that the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit was rejected solely based on the description of the aforesaid property in the master plan as paddy field. Such a contention cannot be sustained in the light of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner reported in 2010(2) KLT 617. It was held by this Court that while dealing with an application for building permit, the description of the said property in the revenue records or in the concerned records is not the matter which is to be taken into consideration whilst, what matters is the actual nature of the property in question. Evidently, Ext.P2 would go to show that the petitioner was granted permission to convert the land in question by an order passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation order, 1967. The specific contention of the petitioner is that on the strength of the same, the land in question was converted as dry land more than 20 years back. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the reason assigned in Ext.P1 to reject the application of the petitioner for building permit is not sustainable in the W.P.(C) NO.5115/2010 3 light of the decision in Praveen's case (supra). Accordingly, Ext.P1 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the respondent to consider the application referred to in Ext.P1 submitted by the petitioner for building permit afresh in accordance with the decision of this Court in Praveen's case (supra) and also after conducting an inspection to ascertain the actual nature of the property in question. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of on month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.5115/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.5115/2010 5