IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14357 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SALU,AGED 38, EDASSERY HOUSE, PALAYAMPARAMBU P.O,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- MALA GRAMA PACHAYAT,REP.BY SECRETARY, MALA,THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 14357 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 11, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner prays for a direction to the respondent Panchayat to consider Ext.P6 application for a building permit and grant the permit as sought for by him. 2. The facts in brief are: Ext.P1 is the sale certificate issued by the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, in favour of the petitioner's brother who had purchased the property mentioned therein in the sale conducted in pursuance to E.P.No.133/1992 in O.S.No.397/1989. The sale certificate describes the property as “nilam nikathu parambu”. It also gives the details of improvements that have been made in the land. It is stated by the petitioner that a portion of the property covered by Ext.P1 was purchased by Ext.P2 sale deed of 29.2.2008. Ext.P3 is the tax receipt and Ext.P4 is the possession certificate issued by the Village Officer for production before the respondent panchayat for the purpose of building construction only. Petitioner has also produced Ext.P5 series of WP(C) 14357/08 2 photographs showing that the property is a fully reclaimed garden land. On the strength of this, petitioner made Ext.P6 application to the respondent Panchayat for issuing a building permit and according to the petitioner that application is not considered by the respondent Panchayat on the ground that in the revenue records the land is shown as a paddy field and therefore without a sanction obtained from the Revenue Divisional Officer under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, Ext.P6 application for building permit cannot be granted. 3. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the respondent Panchayat. 4. The fact that for the last several years the land is a fully developed agricultural land is evident from the documents produced by the petitioner and particularly the photographs, the genuineness of which is not disputed by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. If that be so, I cannot accept the plea of the Panchayat that only for the reason that the land is shown as a paddy field or as a reclaimed one in the revenue records, petitioner should, despite the reality, obtain permission from the Revenue Divisional WP(C) 14357/08 3 Officer under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Therefore, in my view, the Panchayat is bound to consider Ext.P6 application without insisting on a permit from the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing that the Panchayat will consider Ext.P6 application made by the petitioner, in the light of the observations made above and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-