IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 1846 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V-DAY INN, DOOR NO.XI/145 KILILYARA, M.C.ROAD, PULLUVAZHI, PERUMBAVOOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER KARHTIKEYAN K.A, AGED 50, S/O.AYYAPPAN RESIDING AT KILIYARA, M.C.ROAD, PULLUVAZHI, PERUMBAVOOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REVENUE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKULAM VILLAGE KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. SECRETARY, VAZHAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN FOR R5 SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R5 SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD FOR R5 SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) FOR R5 SRI.MATHEW SUNNY FOR R5 GP SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1846 of 2010 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED 4143/09 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 26.11.09 EXT.P2(a)- TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 26.11.09 EXT.P3- SALE DEED DATED 343 OF 1979 OF SRO PERUMBAVOOR DATED 13.6.79 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1314 OF 1959 DATED 17.2.59 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 4.12.09 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT, ROUGH SKETCH AND SCENE MAHAZAR OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKULAM DATED 9.12.09 EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 17.12.09 SEEKING PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT THE COMPOUND WALL EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 2.1.10 SEEKING PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT THE HOTEL IN THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY EXT.P9- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23.11.09 EXT.P10- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C6/302/10 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.1.10 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).1846/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P10 by which Exts.P7 and P8 applications made by the petitioner for the construction of a compound wall and a commercial building, were rejected by the Panchayat on the ground that the property in question is described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records. 2. 50 cents of property situated in Re Survey No.212/14 of Vazhakkulam Village was purchased by the petitioner by Ext.P1 sale deed. It is in relation to the said property that the petitioner submitted Exts.P7 and P8 applications referred to above. As already stated, the only reason assigned in Ext.P10 for rejecting the application is that the property has been described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4 is the previous title deed which was executed way back on W.P.(C).1846/10 2 17.2.1959. It is seen that in this document property is described as garden land. Similar is the description of the property contained in Ext.P1. Ext.P6 is the report submitted by the Village Officer. In this report, the Village Officer has stated that in the village records property is shown as 'Nilam'. Proceeding further, it is stated that he has inspected the property and has found that coconut trees, which are more than 50 years old, are seen in the land in question. It is stated that traces of a building that existed in the property was also noted by the Village Officer. Therefore, apart from Ext.P4 title deed of 1959, the Village Officer's report also supports the case of the petitioner that long in the past, the property has been developed into a garden land. In such circumstances, the conclusion of the Panchayat in Ext.P10, that the property is shown as 'Nilam' in the revenue records and therefore, permission cannot be granted, is totally opposed the ground realities. For these reasons, I cannot uphold Ext.P10. 4. Therefore, Ext.P10 will stand quashed. Panchayat is directed to re-consider the application made by the petitioner in W.P.(C).1846/10 3 the light of Exts.P1, P4 and P6 referred to above. Fresh orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs