IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 4660 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- E.N.GOPAKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, EDATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALISSERY, ANNAMANADA P.O.,THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- KUZHUR GRAMAPANCHAYAT REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, KUZHUR, MALA, THRISSUR ADV. MR.S.VIDYASAGAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4660 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: DECISION REPORTED IN 2009(3) KLT 899. EXT.P2: DECISION REPORTED IN 2009(1) KLT 123. EXT.P3: SALE DEED NO.3355/2008 DTD. 16.7.2008. EXT.P4: AGREEMENT DTD. 29.1.2010 ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER AND THE CONSUMERFED. EXT.P5: PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXT.P5(a): PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXT.P5(b): PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXT.P5(c): PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXT.P6: BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL ....... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.4660 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner submitted an application for building permit. Copy of the sale deed is produced and marked as Ext.P3. In Ext.P3, the nature of the property is described as ‘nilamnikathu parambu’. The writ petition is filed seeking a direction directing the respondent to consider Ext.P6 application for building permit within such time as may be fixed by this Court. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that eastern side of the petitioner’s property is a public road and on the southern side there are shop buildings. It is further averred that the property is lying as a dry land for the past more than 40 years and the petitioner contended that it is clear from Exts.P3 and P5 that the land is not a paddy land and on physical verification also it is clear that there is no paddy cultivation in the property. The petitioner submits that there is no justification for denying the building permit stating that the property is described as ‘nilam’ in the revenue records. 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 ::2:: W.P.(C).No.4660 Of 2011 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). 4. In the above said circumstances, the learned counsel for the Panchayath submitted that the application for building permit can be considered in accordance with law, after ascertaining the real nature of the property. The learned counsel for the Panchayath also submitted that if the petitioner submits an application for building permit within a week from today, the application shall be considered on merits and appropriate orders shall be passed within one month thereafter. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Panchayath to consider and pass appropriate orders, if an application for building permit is filed by the petitioner within a week from today. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-