IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 28388 of 2011(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ATTASSERI PILATHOTTATHIL FAZAL, S/O.ALAVI, VILAYIL P.O., CHURUPARAMBU, KONDOTTY. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- THE KONDOTTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 638. BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.28388/2011 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1- THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 28.4.2010. EXHIBIT P2- THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 4.10.2011. EXHIBIT P3- THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 29.4.2010. EXHIBIT P4- THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 7.10.2011. EXHIBIT P5- THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.4545/R/A.1/11/LSGD DATED 22.1.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.28388 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P2 and for a direction commanding the respondent to issue a building permit to the petitioner as applied by him. 2. The petitioner is having 6.82 Ares of land in Kondotty Village, Ernad Taluk which he purchased as per Ext.P1 sale deed. The description of the property is mentioned as dry land in Ext.P1. The petitioner submitted an application for building permit for the purpose of constructing a commercial building in his property. The respondent Panchayath rejected the application stating that as per the Village records, the said property is mentioned as 'nilam' and conversion order is not produced. Ext.P2 is the said order. 3. The petitioner submits that the property is surrounded by several building in the very same survey number and the Panchayath had issued building permits to several persons in similar circumstances in the very same survey number. It is pointed out by the petitioner that his property is a pucca dry land and there is no reason for the Panchayath to reject his application for building permit. Petitioner submits that Ext.P2 order passed by the ::2:: W.P.(C).No.28388 Of 2011 Panchayath rejecting his application for building permit is illegal and unsustainable. 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 above said circumstances, Ext.P2 order is quashed. There will be a direction to the respondent Panchayath to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the respondent for further action. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-