IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27015 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- GLEETUS @ CLETUS,AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.ELUVATHINGAL JOHN,NOW RESIDING AT 1-E, CHELOOR TOWERS,POOTHOLE DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.N.M.MADHU MS.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -01. 2. THE CORPORATION OF THRISSUR REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,THRISSUR 680 001. 3. THE TOWN PLANNER, THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR 680 001. ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN,SC,THRISSUR CORPO FOR R2 & 3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MUHAMMED SHAFI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27015 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: SALE DEED NO.6079/2008 OF S.R.O., AYYANTHOLE. EXT.P2: SALE DEED NO.5494/2001 OF S.R.O., AYYANTHOLE. EXT.P3: ORDER DTD. 14.2.1991. EXT.P4: PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P4(a): PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P4(b): PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P4(c): PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P4(d): PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P5: ORDER DTD. 11.7.2011. EXT.P6: G.O.(MS)NO.123/08/LSGD DTD. 28.4.2010 REFERRED TO EXT.P5. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL .... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.27015 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed for a declaration that Ext.P6 Government Order is no more valid, to quash Ext.P5 order and for a direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider and take appropriate decision on the application for the building permit submitted by the petitioner ignoring Ext.P6 Government Order. 2. The petitioner applied for grant of building permit for the construction of a residential building. Exts.P1 & P2 are the copies of the assignment deeds in favour of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent by Ext.P5 order rejected the application stating that as per G.O.(MS).123/08/LSGD dated 28.4.2010 construction could be allowed in the property covered by documents registered before 31.5.2007. Ext.P6 is the Government Order referred to in Ext.P5. The petitioner submits that prior owner of the property applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur, seeking permission to convert the wet land into a dry land and that by Ext.P3 order dated 14.2.1991 the RDO granted ::2:: W.P.(C).No.27015 Of 2011 permission. It is submitted that on the basis of Ext.P3 order, later, the property was converted in to a dry land. According to the petitioner, the property was converted as a dry land long back on the basis of the permission granted vide Ext.P3 order and therefore, the reasons stated in Ext.P5 rejecting the application for permit cannot stand. It is also pointed out that several buildings are located nearby the petitioner’s property. The petitioner produced photographs marked as Ext.P4 series, which would also show that the property is not lying as a paddy filed. The petitioner also contends that Ext.P6 order has no application so far as his case is concerned. It is pointed out that permission for conversion under the KLU Order was given by the competent authority as early as in 1991 and the property was converted in accordance with the permission obtained from the RDO and hence it cannot be treated as paddy land. 3. 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 ::3:: W.P.(C).No.27015 Of 2011 this Court in the decision reported in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayath (2009 (3) KLT 899). 4. Accordingly Ext.P5 order is set aside. The respondent Corporation is directed 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. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the respondent for further action. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-