IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10633 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- REJI SEBASTIAN, ELANJIMATTATHIL HOUSE, SREEVALSAM, 26/424, GODOWN ROAD, EDAPPALLY TOLL, COCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SRI.T.K.SHAIJ RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EDATHALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF FOR R1 SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH FOR R1 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN FOR R1 SRI.V.R.REKESH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.10633/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST GIVEN TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ON 23.4.2009. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.4.08. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT DT 10.9.2009. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DT 28.4.2009. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR NO.C8-5208/09 DATED NIL. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2946/09/K DT.15.1.2010. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION GIVEN ALONG WITH THE PLAN PREPARED BY THE ENGINEER. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A13263/2010 DT 23.3.2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10633 OF 2010 (D) ===================== Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T The application made by the petitioner for a building permit was rejected by the respondent Panchayat by Ext.P8. It is challenging this order, the writ petition is filed. 2. A reading of Ext.P8 shows that, according to the Secretary, going by the revenue records, the land in question has been described as a 'Nilam' and it was therefore that permission has been declined. This Court had occasion to consider this very issue in the judgment in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009(3) KLT 899), where it has been held that the application should be decided taking into account the present condition of the land. 3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the land in question is a fully developed garden land. If that be so, the entry in the revenue records relied on by the Panchayat in Ext.P8 can be of no consequence, especially in the light of the judgment referred to above. WPC No. 10633/10 :2 : Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P8. The respondent is directed to inspect the land, and if it is satisfied that the land in question is a garden land, fresh orders in accordance with law will be passed. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp