IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 9318 of 2010(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PRAVEEN S.PILLAI, VRINDAVANAM, VENGARA, THODIYOOR NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SECRETARY, CHUNAKKRA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHUNAKKARA P.O,ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 534. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER,VILLAGE OFFICE, CHUNAKKARA P.O.,ALAPPUZHA, PIN- 690 534. R1 BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH, R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.9318/2010-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DEED NO.322/2009 DTD. 02/03/2009 OF S.R.O, CHERIYANADU. EXT.P.2: PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXT.P.1. PROPERTY. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DTD 20/02/2009 ISSUED BY THE DEPT. OF INDUSTRIES. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DTD 03/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES & BOILERS. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DTD. 12/08/2009 OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DTD. 26/05/2009 OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 13/03/2009 FOR BUILDING PERMIT. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 01/02/2010 IN W.P.(C).NO.3161/2010. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 04/03/2010. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 09/09/2009 IN W.P.(C).NO.15687/2009. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD 25/03/2010 SUBMITTED UNDER THE R.T.I. ACT. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 02/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.2. UNDER THE R.T.I. ACT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTY. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AGRICULTURAL OFFICER OF CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE DT. 02/03/2010. EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE MASS PETITION FILED BY THE VETTIKODE PADASEKHARA SAMITHI BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF CHUNAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DTD. 25/02/2010. EXT.R1.(C) (I): COPY OF THE MASS PETITION FILED BY THE AGRICULTURIST AND PEOPLE BEFORE THE SECRETARY, CHUNAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DTD 18/03/2009. W.P.(C). NO.9318/2010-L: EXT.R1.(C) (II): COPY OF THE MASS PETITION FILED BY THE VETTIKODE PADASEKHARA SAMITHI BEFORE THE SECRETARY, CHUNAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DTD. 22/06/2009. EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DTD. 07/03/2009. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. No. 9318 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this 3rd day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner in possession of 29.5. Ares of property comprised in Re-Sy. Nos.64/5/11 & 64/4/10 in Block No.8 of Chunakkara Village. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P9 order wherein his application for building permit was rejected. The contention of the petitioner is that his application for building permit was rejected solely relying on the description of the property in question as Nilam in the revenue records. In the said circumstances relying on the decision of this Court reported in Praveeen v. State of Kerala [ 2010(2) KHC 499], the learned counsel contended that the mere description of a concerned property in the revenue records shall not be taken into account while considering an application for building permit and what matters in that regard is the actual nature of the concerned property. The learned counsel further submitted that Ext.P9 would not reveal that the concerned authority had -2- W.P.(C) No.9318/2010 conducted an inspection to ascertain the actual nature of the property in question. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. In the light of the decision in Praveen's case (supra), the application for building permit should not have been rejected solely looking its description in the revenue records and in fact the concerned authority should have ascertained the actual nature of the property. Evidently, a perusal of Ext.P9 would suggest that the application was rejected taking into account the description of the property in question as paddy field in the revenue records. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the property in question has not so far been re-claimed and even now, it remains as a paddy field. The learned counsel for the petitioner refuted that contention. The said disputatious fact cannot be adjudicated in this proceedings. However, I am of the view that in the light of the decision in Praveen's case (supra) the competent -3- W.P.(C) No.9318/2010 authority is bound to ascertain the said fact. In the said circumstances, to enable the first respondent to take a decision, the 2nd respondent shall conduct an inspection in the property in question viz., 29.5 Ares of property comprised in Re-Sy.Nos.64/5/11 & 64/4/10 in Block No.8 of Chunakkara Village and file a report before the 1st respondent regarding the actual nature of the property. It shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. It shall also be ascertained whether the property in question was re- claimed or not and if reclaimed whether it was reclaimed ignoring any order from a competent authority restraining the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest from reclaiming the same. On receipt of such a report, the first respondent shall re-consider the application submitted by the petitioner considering the said report, the relevant orders on the subject and also taking into account the decision of this Court in Praveen's case (supra). To enable the first respondent to do Ext.P9 is set aside. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks -4- W.P.(C) No.9318/2010 from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE rka The penultimate sentence in page 3 of the judgment dated 03.06.2011 in WP(C) 9318/2010 is suo motu corrected as “To enable the first respondent to do so, Ext.P9 is set aside” as per order dated 13.10.2011 in WP(C) 9318/2010.