IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 26229 of 2011(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- MUHAMMED MUSTAFA, S/O.YOUSAF, AGED 43 YEARS, PULIKAMATH HOUSE, KARUVAMBRAM, MELAKKOM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.M.T.SHEEBA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRTARY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 121. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SD WPC NO. 26229/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AS NO.E3-6256/11 DATED 23/9/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE SD HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.26229 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner and another are said to be in joint possession of 8 cents of properties in R.S.No.48/1B in Manjeri Village. For the purpose of constructing a commercial building the petitioner applied for building permit before the respondent Municipality. The Secretary of the Municipality informed the petitioner that his application for building permit cannot be granted for the reason that as per the Village records and the possession certificate, the description of the properties is mentioned as 'Nilam' and hence building permit cannot be granted. 3. The petitioner submits that the property is lying as dry land, surrounded by several other residential as well as commercial buildings. It is contended that there is absolutely no justification in rejecting the application for the reason that in the Village records, the nature of the property is mentioned as 'Nilam'. Hence, it is contended that the rejection of the application for building permit without inspecting the actual lie of the land is absolutely unsustainable. ::2:: W.P.(C).No.26229 Of 2011 4. A Division Bench of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617) held that the nature of the property recorded in the village office as paddy land is not a reason for rejecting the application for permit and that the ground reality has to be considered before passing an order on the application for building permit. Similar view was taken by this Court in the decision reported in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayath (2009 (3) KLT 899). 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, a direction is issued to the Secretary of the Municipality to reconsider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for further action. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-