IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 21828 of 2008(W) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. ELANTHOLIL KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 47 YEARS, INTHOLY HOUSE KODAKARA P.O., KODAKARA PANCHAYAT KONDAKARA VILLAGE , MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI. JAISON T.PAUL SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE THRISSUR 2. KODAKARA GRAMAPANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KODAKARA GRAMAPANCHAYAT, KODAKARA P.O.,THRISSUR PIN 680684 3. THE SECRETARY, KODAKARA GRAMAPANCHAYAT KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 684 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KODAKARA VILLAGE KODAKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ FOR R2, GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.21828/2008-W A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.333 OF 2008 OF THE S.R.O. KALLETTUMKARA. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 26.5.2008. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A5/BA.43/08/09 DATED 27.5.2008 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXTS.P5, P5 (a), P5(b) & P5(c): PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 2490/2008 OF THE KODAKARA VILLAGE OFFICE. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NOS.10376/2008. // T R U E C O P Y // PA TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 21828 OF 2008 W ==================== Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4. 2. An application made by the petitioner for a building permit is seen declined only on the ground that in the revenue records, the nomenclature used to describe the land is “paddy field”. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to photographs of the plot, which have been produced as Ext.P5 series. According to him, title deed also describes the land as a garden land. But, however as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the title deed is of 2008 and therefore, may not be of much assistance to the petitioner. But then, the fact remains that going by the photographs produced by the petitioner, the land is a fully developed garden land with yielding coconut trees. If that be so, the reference in the revenue records and the nomenclature used therein by itself, cannot be a guiding factor. 3. In view of this, I am inclined to direct reconsideration of the matter quashing Ext.P4. The 3rd respondent shall inspect the land in respect of which application has been made by the petitioner and on such WPC 21828/08 :2 : inspection, if he finds that the land is a fully developed garden land with yielding coconut trees as asserted by the petitioner, the matter shall necessarily be reconsidered in the light of the realities of the situation. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp