IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 2890 of 2008(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T. MUHAMMED BASHEER HAJI, S/O. SAIDALAVI AGED 51 YEARS, THEKKARATHODIKA HOUSE, EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT: ------------- THE EDAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDAKKARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.2890 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 4th March, 2008 JUDGMENT It appears to me that the petitioner is voicing a genuine grievance. He constructed a commercial building on a plot having 12 cents belonging to him. On the very same plot, a residential building having door No.VII/487H belonging to him also exists. Exts.P5 to P7 will show that the petitioner's claim that the property is actually dry land though in the revenue records the same is described as wet land is correct. 2. The respondent-Panchayat has filed a statement wherein it is conceded that the construction of the building by the petitioner was on the strength of Ext.P3 permit. But it is contended that Ext.P3 permit was issued by the previous Secretary of the Panchayat without reference to the situation that in the revenue records the property is shown as paddy lands. The Panchayat however does not dispute the existence of the petitioner's own residential building on the property. The statement also does not contend that in reality the property is nilam and not dry land. I am of the view that the insistence of the Panchayat that the petitioner should obtain permit from the R.D.O. under the Land Utilisation Order for conversion of nilam to dry land W.P.C.No.2890/08 - 2 - before the building is numbered is justified. After all, even without such a permit the residential building was numbered and the petitioner continues to occupy the residential building. The construction of the building was pursuant to a building permit. It should be presumed that the plan was approved and the permit was issued for the construction of the building by the Panchayat only after making necessary site inspection. It is too late in the day for the Panchayat to take the stand that the construction is illegal since the same is without a permit from the R.D.O. Under the above circumstances, I quash Ext.P4 and direct the respondent-Panchayat to assign door number to the petitioner's building. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE