IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21810 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SREEKUMARAN.P, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. PARAKKAL SAROJINI AMMA, KISMET,ELAPPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-676 121, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY,MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-676 121. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21810 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: SALE DEED NO.2749/2008 DTD. 31.3.2008. EXT.P2: PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DTD. 27.11.1971. EXT.P3: PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY INCLUDING THE TOWN HALL AND THE PUBLIC ROAD. EXT.P3(a): PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P3(b): PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P4: APPLICATION FOR PERMIT DTD. 3.8.2011. EXT.P5: DECISION REPORTED IN 2009 (3) KLT 899. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.21810 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner owns and possesses 10.84 cents of land in R.S.No.61 in Manjeri Village as per the sale deed No.2749/08 dated 31.3.2008. The said sale deed is marked as Ext.P1. The property is described as “dry land” in Ext.P1 sale deed. Ext.P2 is the copy of the purchase certificate dated 27.11.1971 issued in favour of the vendor of the petitioner. The nature of land in the schedule to Ext.P2 purchase certificate is shown as 'reclaimed land”. Exts.P3, P3(a) and P3(b) photographs also show that the property is a dry land. According to the petitioner the property remains as a dry land for the last more than 50 years. However, the property is shown as “nilam” in the revenue records. 3. For the purpose of constructing a building the petitioner applied for building permit before the 1st respondent Municipality. Ext.P4 is the copy of the application for building permit. It is averred in the writ petition that the Secretary of the Municipality told the petitioner that since the land is shown as ::2:: W.P.(C).No.21810 Of 2011 “nilam” in the revenue records building permit will not be granted. 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 consider Ext.P4 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. 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/-