IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 25056 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.P.MADHAVI, AGED 60, W/O.APPU (LATE) VADAKKEPURAKKAL, THEKKUM MURI, TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE TIRUR MUNICIPALITY,TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, REP BY ITS SECRETARY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25056 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.73/1965 OF SRO TIRUR EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THELEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENCE CERTIFICATE (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).25056/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner's grievance is that the respondent Municipality is not accepting Ext.P4 application submitted by her for obtaining permit for constructing a house in the plot mentioned in the application. It is stated that the petitioner has derived title as per Exts.P1 and Ext.P3, the certificate of possession of her property. According to the petitioner, there already existed a house for the last 40 years and the petitioner intends to reconstruct a house by demolishing the existing one. Petitioner refers to Exts.P5 to P7 to support her contentions that she is residing in the house in existence of her property. 2. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent Municipality. 3. If as stated by the petitioner, she is residing in the house which is already in existence and intends to reconstruct the house, as the property of the petitioner is shown as 'Nancha', W.P.(C).25056/09 2 the property has to be inspected and the actual state of affairs should be ascertained by the 1st respondent and orders on the application shall be passed on that basis. 4. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition directing that it will be open to the petitioner to produce Ext.P4 application and supporting documents before the 1st respondent and if such an application was tendered that will be accepted, property will be inspected and orders will be passed on Ext.P4 application in the light of the aforesaid observations. Orders shall be passed as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs