IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 38068 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. K. NARAYANA KURUP, S/O. LATE KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD. 2. V. USHA RANI, W/O. K. NARAYANA KURUP, AGED 61 YEARS, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SRI.C.B.RAJEESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. PUDUPARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUDUPARIYARAM.P.O, PALAKKAD - 678 733. 2. SECRETARY, PUDUPARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH-678 733. 3. THE PUDUPARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, PUDUPARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUDUPARIYARAM.P.O, PALAKKAD - 678 733. R1, R2 BY ADVS. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/08/2011, COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 38068 of 2010(G) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXT.P1. COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.4483[2007 OF S.R.O. OLAVAKKD ON 28.12.2007. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.P4. COPY of the ORDER DT. 13.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE R.D.O. PALAKKAD. EXT.P5. COPY of the ORDER DT.24.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE R.D.O. PALAKKAD. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 15.11.2009 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT.P7. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATD 11.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 01.07.2010 SENT BY THE SECOND RSPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 38068 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of August 2011. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P6 to Ext.P8 orders and for a direction commanding the 2nd respondent to grant building permit to the petitioner as applied for. 2. Petitioner claimed title and possession of 7.80 cents of dry land in re-survey no. 411/4 of Pudupariyaram Village in Palakkad District. Ext.P1 is the copy of title deed. In Ext.P1 title deed the nature of the property is described as purayidom. The property was purchased from Radhakrishnan and Pankajakshi. Ext.P2 is the copy of the possession certificate and Ext.P3 is the copy of the tax receipt. Exts.P1 & P3 produced to show that the aforesaid extent of land is owned and possessed by the petitioner. 3. It is contended that the predecessors in the interest of the petitioner submitted an application before the authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order for conversion of land. Exts.P4 & P5 are the orders W.P.(C) No.38068/2010 2 passed by the statutory authority granting permission for conversion of the land. Ext.P4 & P5 orders are passed on 13.3.08 and 24.3.08 respectively. It is submitted that at the time when the petitioner purchased the property vide Ext.P1 sale deed, the property was converted and the nature of the property as on the date of purchase is dry land. The petitioner submitted application for building permit before the respondents 1 and 2. The application for building permit was rejected by the 2nd respondent stating that the property is classified as nilam in revenue records and therefore, permit cannot be granted. 4. Exts.P6 to P8 orders are under challenge. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the nature of property shown in the revenue records is nilam. This Court had occasion to consider the cases where the property is described as paddy land in the revenue records but in reality it is a garden land. The Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported 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 W.P.(C) No.38068/2010 3 before passing an order on the application for building permit. Similar view was taken by this Court in the decision reported in Sahahnaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009 (3) KLT 899). In the circumstances, Exts.P6 to P8 orders passed by the 2nd respondent Panchayath is quashed. There will be a direction to the Secretary of the Panchayat to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner and appropriate orders shall be passed expeditiously at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Before passing the orders, the Secretary of the Panchayat shall inspect the property and satisfy that the land is a dry land. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE al