IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 7812 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ANTONY K.K., S/O.KANDAMKULATHY KUNJUVAREED, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE MAPRANAM DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA. 3. PORATHISSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT (IRINJALAKUDA VIA) REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. R1-R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.7812 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 24th March, 2008 JUDGMENT The Government Pleader was directed to seek instructions from the 2nd respondent , the Village Officer as to what is the present nature of the property in question whether it is actually nilam or parambu. Written instructions have been imparted by the 2nd respondent to the Advocate General and unfortunately the same does not answer the query posed by the court. What is stated in the written instruction is that in the basic tax receipt the property is shown as nilam and no orders from the R.D.O. permitting conversion of the nilam as parambu are recorded. According to the Village Officer, mere description of a particular item of property in the title document as parambu does not mean that the same is actually paramabu. It is also stated that only if in the classification column also, the property is shown as parambu, can it be accepted that the property is parambu. Having regard to everyday realities, I am unable to accept the highly technical stand taken by the 2nd respondent. The various documents placed on record by the petitioner and particularly the photographs Ext.P2 series shall in my opinion show to the very hilt that the property on which the petitioner W.P.C.No.7812/08 - 2 - sought for permission to put up residential building has been converted long ago as dry land. The classification as parambu and nilam in the basic tax register does not have any relevancy to do with the ground reality. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the Writ Petition directing the third respondent to receive Ext.P4 to ofile and pass correct and just order on the same taking into account the nomenclature of the property given in the title document of the petitioner dehors its classification in the possession certificate and basic tax receipts. Needful shall be done at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving copy of this judgment. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE