IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 2960 of 2010(T) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- K.V.DASAN, S/O VAREED, KOLAMBRATH HOUSE, ARANATTU KARA P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI. P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT. R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR. 2. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, THRISSUR CORPORATION. * ADDL.R3.SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT. *ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 17.8.2010 IN I.A.NO.11636/2010. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN, SC SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS SRI.V.N.HARIDAS R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BKA WP(C).No. 2960 of 2010(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 270S5/2008 DATED 24.04.2008 OF AYYANTHOLE S.R.O. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE GO (MS)/123/08/LSGD DATED 28.04.2008. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.02.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE BKA HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.2960 Of 2010 ---------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 issued by the 2nd respondent and for a direction commanding the respondents to consider the application for building permit and issue building permit within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 2. The petitioner submitted an application for permission to construct a residential building in the property owned by him. The petitioner is the owner of three cents of land purchased as per sale deed No.2705/1/08 dated 24.4.2008 of Ayyanthole S.R.O. His application was rejected for the reason that only those applications in plots, which were registered prior to 31.5.2007 as per title deed shall be considered. Ext.P3 is the notice issued by the 2nd respondent. 3. The petitioner submits that the restriction contained in Ext.P2 in considering applications for construction in plots with respect to the date of registration as per sale deed is unreasonable and that no purpose will be served by fixing a cut off date in cases of lands which are unfit for paddy cultivation. ::2:: W.P.(C).No.2960 Of 2010 4. 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). 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ext.P3 notice is quashed. There will be a direction to the respondent Corporation to reconsider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, without reference to the reasons stated in Ext.P3, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the respondent corporation for further action. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-