IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WPC.No. 23954 of 2010 (T) PETITIONER: 1. PAUL, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. CHACKO, KARIPPELI HOUSE RAYAMANGALAM KARA RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK BY ADV.SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LOCAL ADMINISTRTION SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, (SPECIAL GRADE) RAYAMANGALAM P.O. PIN-683 545 REP BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR, GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JV WPC NO: 23954/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM TALUK OFFICE KUNNATHUNADU BEARING NO.G-12-8161/08 DATED 04.08.08. P2: COPY OF NOTICE NO.D-184/04 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT TO MR.REJI, S/O PAULOSE OF VELLANJI HOUSE. P3: COPY OF APPLICATION FOR RENOVATION OF THE BUILDING FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT ON 06.11.07 P4: COPY OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO: 297/09 DATED 18.05.09 P5: COPY OF NOTICE NO.A4-5173/08 DATED 17.06.09 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE REPORT OF MONITORING COMMITTEE BEARING NO.R/K/15/2009- 2010 DATED 10.09.2009. P7: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 03.10.2009 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FILED BY PETITIONER. P8: COPY OF REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.03.2010. P9: COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE JV HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 23954 OF 2010 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT Writ Petition is filed for a direction commanding the 2nd respondent-Panchayat to consider and allow the application for permit in the light of the exact nature of the property. 2. Petitioner submitted an application for building permit before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent-Panchayat rejected the application on the basis of the report of the monitoring committee. Petitioner challenged the order passed by the Secretary of the Panchayat before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. The Tribunal by Ext.P4 order dated 18/5/2009 set aside the order passed by the Secretary, allowed the appeal, and directed the Secretary of the Panchayat to pass fresh proper orders, as per law, within one month from the date of the order. Subsequent to Ext.P4 order, the Panchayat monitoring committee inspected the property and found that the property is lying as 'Purayidom'. In the -2- W.P.(C).No.23954/2010 report the committee stated that Act 28 of 2008 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, since the property is not a paddy field as on the date of commencement of the Act 28/08.. Ext.P6 is the copy of the said report. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of Ext.P6 report, the Panchayat has not taken any further steps to grant building permit. On 27/3/2011 the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation before the 2nd respondent. Petitioner submits that even in revenue records the property is described as a dry land. Petitioner produced Ext.P1 copy of the certificate issued by the Additional Tahsildar, Kunnathunad certifying that the property is lying as a dry land. It is also pointed out that in the property owned by the petitioner there was a shop building, which was originally let out to a toddy shop Contractor. After few years the building was let out for conducting a meat stall. Petitioner also produced a copy of the notice issued by the Panchayat marked as Ext.P2 directing closure of the meat stall conducted in the building originally let out to a toddy shop Contractor. Petitioner also submits that there are several trees aged -3- W.P.(C).No.23954/2010 between 15 and 20 years in his property. 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 this Court in the decision reported in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayath (2009 (3) KLT 899). In the aforesaid circumstances, writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent-Panchayat to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of being heard the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. kcv.