IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 783 of 2011(W) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- TOWER VISION INDIA (P) LIMITED, 1ST FLOOR, MUSCAT TOWERS, S.A.ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT LEGAL MANAGER MR.PRAMOD JAIJI. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SRI.SATHISH NINAN, SRI.ARUN THOMAS, SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT (SPL.GRADE), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAYAMANGALAM P.O., KURUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 545. 2. SECRETARY, RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT (SPL.GRADE), RAYAMANGALAM P.O., KURUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 545. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.K.KARNIS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.783 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 9th February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a mobile tower infrastructure company. The petitioner filed an application on 4.10.2010 before the first respondent Panchayat for permission to construct telecommunication tower in Re- survey No.224/ (Sy.No.382/13 and 382/14) of Rayamangalam Village, Ernakulam District. The permission sought for was rejected as per Ext.P6. The reason assigned for the rejection of the said request is that the property in question comprised in the above survey number has been described as paddy filed (nilam) and therefore, no permission could be granted to effect any construction. The contention of the petitioner is that the property in question was reclaimed long before the introduction of the Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. In short, it is contended that the reason for rejection of the application as per Ext.P6 is unsustainable in the light of the decision of this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009 (3) KLT 899). Thereafter, a Division Bench of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617) held that the description of a property in the revenue records cannot be the sole reason for rejection of an application for building permit and in short, the true nature of the WP(C).No.783/2011 2 property in question has to be looked into by the authorities independent of its description in the revenue records. It is evident from the impugned order in Ext.P6 that the application for building permit was rejected solely on the ground that the property in question has been described in the revenue records as `nilam'. In other words, there was no independent consideration of the relevant aspect as to whether the property in question is `nilam' or not. In the said circumstances and in the light of the decisions in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (supra) and Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (supra) Ext.P6 cannot be sustained. To enable the Panchayat to consider the application submitted by the petitioner on 4.10.2010 for building permit in accordance with the provisions and taking into account the decisions referred above, Ext.P6 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner on 4.10.2010 in accordance with the relevant provisions and also taking note of the decisions referred above. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S to Judge