IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 3791 of 2011(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MOHAMMED ASHRAF.P.M., S/O. P.A.MUHAMMED KUNHI, RESIDING AT KATTAKKAL HOUSE, KALANAD.P.O., KALANAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA.M.S. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KASARGOD AT KANHANGAD KASARGOD DISTRICT-671 315. 4. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, KOLIYADUKAM, P.O.PERUMBALAM, KASARGODE DISTRICT PIN-671 314. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, KALANAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 317. 6. CHEMMANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHEMMANAD, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671 317. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE R6 BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMMED FAIZAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)NO.3791/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SITE PLAN AND APPLICATION FOR PERMIT. P2 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 5TH REPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P7 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUEDBY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P(C) NO.3791 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 31st day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is the owner in possession of 54.75 cents of land comprised in re-survey Nos.99/7, 99/9, 99/13, 99/8, 99/10 and 99/13 of Kalanad village, filed this writ petition mainly challenging Exts.P6 and P7 and seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the sixth respondent to grant building permit to the petitioner to construct shop building in the property comprised in the aforesaid re-survey numbers. Ext.P6 is only a letter of the 3rd respondent to the 6th respondent. Ext.P9 is the order whereby the application for building permission was rejected. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition by the sixth respondent. It is admitted thereunder that Exhibit P1 application has been received by the sixth respondent. The said land is described as “Nilam” in the concerned records. At the same time, it is specifically stated thereunder that there is no cultivation in the land comprised W.P(C).No.3791 of 2011 -: 2 :- in the aforesaid survey numbers for the past several years. That apart, it is stated therein that the land in question was filled up more than 10 years ago. 3. It is thus obvious from the counter affidavit that it is the description of the property in question as “Nilam” that stands in the way of consideration of Exhibit P1 by the sixth respondent. I am of the view that it shall not be an impediment for consideration of Exhibit P1 application, in accordance with law, in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner reported in 2010 (2) KLT 617. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the sixth respondent to consider Exhibit P1 application, in accordance with law, and in the light of the decision of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner reported in 2010 (2) KLT 617. To enable such consideration, Ext.P7 order of rejection is set aside. In other words, the description of the property in question as “Nilam” shall not be ground for non-consideration and the W.P(C).No.3791 of 2011 -: 3 :- second respondent shall consider the true nature of the property in question. At the same time, the sixth respondent shall also consider whether the property was reclaimed ignoring any specific orders refraining the petitioner from effecting reclamation and in which event, certainly, reclamation ignoring such orders cannot be permitted to be taken advantage of. This shall be done, expeditiously, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE KRK W.P(C).No.3791 of 2011 -: 4 :-