IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 13868 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. VILASINIAMMA, KOTTANCHRY HOUSE, KIDANGOOR DESOM, POST MARATHAMCODE, VIA KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 2. CHOWANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH AT P.O.CHOWANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 13868 OF 2008 A ==================== Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 order is under challenge. This order is passed by the 2nd respondent Panchayat declining an application made by the petitioner for a building permit. Even going by the records produced by the petitioner, the land is classified as paddy field. Going by the writ petition, the impression one gets is that on the strength of Ext.P1 order dated 29/6/95, the land has already been reclaimed and therefore the view taken in Ext.P3 is erroneous. 2. But then, the counsel for the Panchayat along with the statement dated 20th of June, 2008 has produced as Ext.R2(b), an application made by the petitioner to the 1st respondent. In this application, petitioner has stated that though he was issued Ext.P1 for reclaiming the land for construction purposes, in view of the financial constraints, he could not make use of that offer. On this basis, he sought permission of the RDO for constructing a house in the land mentioned in Ext.P1 itself. This application was considered by the RDO and by Ext.R2 (c), RDO has declined permit. Therefore, going by the records produced by WPC 13868/08 :2 : the Panchayat, it is evident that Ext.P1 order issued by the District Collector under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order ceased to be effective and the petitioner's attempt to get it revalidated by Ext.R2(b) has ended in failure by Ext.R2(c) order. If that be so, the view taken by the Panchayat in Ext.P3,cannot be faulted. Hence the relief sought also cannot be granted. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that in case Ext.R2(c) is reviewed or modified by any appropriate authority and permission is granted to the petitioner, in the light of that order, it will be open to the petitioner to have Ext.P3 reviewed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp