IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC SUNDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 12691 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SUBY SANIL, W/O.SANIL, PARAKKAL HOUSE, KORATTY, KIZHAKKEMURY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL JACOB SRI.K.R.MURALI SRI.PEARL K.DAVIS SRI.I.K.RAJU SRI.M.A.ANZAR SRI.K.M.AJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KIZHAKKUMMURY VILLAGE, KORATTY POST, TRISSUR DIST. 3. THE KORATTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KORATTY P.O., TRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO FOR R3 SRI.M.N.MANOJ FOR R3 SRIA.G.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON 16/11/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.12691/2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner's complaint is that the 3rd respondent is refusing to consider Ext.P3 application made by him for the issuance of a building permit, for the reason that the land in question is classified as Nilam in the revenue records. The case of the petitioner is that it is a garden land and that several constructions have already been made in the neighbourhood. 2. It is now reported that the Tahsildar had conducted inspection of the land and according to the learned Government Pleader, his report also indicates that there has not been any paddy cultivation in the land for at least 10 years in the past. 3. Since the factual position is as above, I do not think that it will be justified on the part of the 3rd respondent to refuse to consider the application made by the petitioner on 2 the only ground that the land has been classified in the revenue records as a paddy field. In my view, reasonableness requires that the present condition of the land should be taken into account and the application should be considered on that basis. Since the present condition, even according to the report of the Tahsildar, is that the land is a garden land, in my view, ignoring the nomenclature used in the revenue records, Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner deserves to be considered by the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 3rd respondent shall consider Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner, untrammeled by the classification of the land in the revenue records. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC vi JUDGE 3 vi.