IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19344 of 2011(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- RATHEESH A S/O. P.RAGHAVAN NAIR, SHAS MANZIL, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, FCI ROAD, PUTHUPPARIYARAM, PALGHAT BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE SRI.M.JOSE ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. PUTHUPPARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PUTHUPPARIYARAM P.O., PALGHAT- 678 733 2. THE SECRETARY, PUTHUPPARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT PALGHAT- 678 733 ADV. SRI.A.V.RAVI FOR R1&2 SC SRI.M.SUGADHA KUMAR FOR R1&2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S WPC. NO.19344/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE TEER DEED DATED 27-3-2009. P2: COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER. P3: COPY OF LETTER DATED 15-1-2010 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF LETTER DATED 6-4-2010 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. J-1123/2008 DATED 24-3-08. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.19344 OF 2011 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P3 and P4 and for a direction commanding the 2nd respondent to rle-consider the matter in the light of Ext.P5 proceedings of the RDO, Palakkad and the decision of this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Paqnchayat and for other incidental reliefs. 2. Petitioner submitted an application before the 2nd respondent for building permit for the construction of a residential building in the property owned by him. The application was rejected by the 2nd respondet for the reason that the land in question is classified as 'Nilam' in the revenue records. The prior owner of the property submitted an application before the RDO, Palakkad for permission to convert 105 cents of land including the 4 cents of land at present owned by the petitioner under Section 6(2) of the -2- W.P.(C).No.19344/2011 Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The RDO, by proceedings No.J.1123/2008 dated 24/3/2008 passed an order according permission to the prior owner to utilize 105 cents of land in R.S.No.411/5 of Puthuppariyaram-II Village for the purpose of construction of residential flats. Ext.P5 is a copy of the said proceedings. It is pointed out that it is quite obvious that the permission has been granted for the construction of residential flats in 105 cents of land, being found that the said land is not suitable for paddy cultivation. The learned counsel or the petitioner also pointed out that the respondents have issued building permits to other land owners for the construction of the building in the same survey numbers. In the decision reported in Raju S. Jethmalani and others v. State of Kerala (2005 (11) SCC 222) the Apex Court held that though land belonging to private persons can be included in development plan, unless the land is promptly acquired by the State Government or the Municipal Corporation to effectuate the -3- W.P.(C).No.19344/2011 said purpose, the land owner cannot be denied the right to use the property for any other purpose. The Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported 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 Panchayt (2009 (3) KLT 899). The proposed implementation of the scheme and the nature of the property recorded in the village records are not reasons for rejecting the application for building permit. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the order rejecting the application for building permit cannot be sustained. 4. In the result, the Exts.P3 and P4 orders are quashed. The Secretary of the Municipality is directed to re-consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner herein -4- W.P.(C).No.19344/2011 and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the judgment does not stand in the way of implementing any scheme or for acquisition of property for any public purpose in future. Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.