IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16809 of 2008(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- P.N. KRISHNADAS, POLAKKULATH HOUSE, C.C. NO. 35/258. EDAPPALLY SOUTH, MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI -25. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, ARPOOKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VILLOONNI P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 008. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJKUMAR - R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE, SC - R1 SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN - R1 SMT.NISHA BOSE – R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.16809/2008 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.447/07 DTD. 4/10/2007. EXT.P2: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.62 DTD. 6/05/2008 OF THE BUILDING NO.218/A&B. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.A.6/07-08 DTD. 10/04/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT DTD. 10/03/2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE NO.C2-120/06 DTD.21/03/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.A3-170/08/04 DTD. 14/05/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.16809/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7, a communication issued by the first respondent, informing the petitioner that he should produce a sanction order from the Revenue Divisional Officer for issuing the building permit applied for by him. The reason stated in Ext.P7 is that, in view of circular No.24136/R-A1 dated 20th June, 2007, issued by the Local Self Government Department, such a sanction is necessary. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in terms of clause (11) of the aforesaid circular a sanction order of the RDO is necessary only if the construction proposed to be undertaken needs reclamation of paddy filed. According to him, the construction is proposed to be undertaken in a garden land and therefore clause(11) of the 2 circular referred to above is inapplicable. 3. If as stated by the petitioner, there is no reclamation involved in the construction of his building, this necessarily is a matter for the first respondent to consider and take a fresh decision. v4. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition, directing that the first respondent shall conduct an inspection of the site, in respect of which building permit is sought for by the petitioner, and if he is satisfied that no reclamation is necessary, he shall reconsider Ext.P5 and and pass revised orders thereon. It is directed that, the aforesaid process shall be completed within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the first respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 3