IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 21334 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. MATHEW JOSEPH, KANJIRATHUNGAL, KULATHOOR-PRAYAR P.O., KANGAZHA VIA., KOTTAYAM. 2. JESSY MATHEW, W/O.MATHEW JOSEPH, KANJIRATHUNGAL, KULATHOOR-PRAYAR P.O., KANGAZHA VIA., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM-686001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM-686001. ADV. MR.SIBY MATHEW FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21334 of 2011(N) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PHOTOGRAPHS OF DISPUTED LAND AND ADJOINING AREA. EXT.P2: BUILDING PERMIT DTD. 8.12.2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: LETTER DTD. 6.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE KUMARANELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: LETTER DATED 20.5.2009 ISSUED BY THE KUMARANELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: DECISION DTD. 10.7.2009 TAKEN BY THE LOCAL MONITORING COMMITTEE. EXT.P6: ORDER DTD. 11.8.2009 PASSED BY THE R.D.O. EXT.P7: ORDER DTD. 19.9.2009 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P8: ORDER DTD. 4.9.2010. EXT.P9: LETTER DTD. 5.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER TO THE CHARGE OFFICER. EXT.P10: APPLICATION DTD. 8.9.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: REPRESENTATION DTD. 14.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P12: LETTER REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.21334 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P12, for a declaration that in respect of the lands in the possession of the petitioners, the provisions of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land act, 2008 has no application, to direct the respondents to reconsider the matter afresh irrespective of the nature of the description of the property as nilam in the revenue records and grant building permit, if the other conditions in the Municipality Act, 1994 are complied with. 2. The petitioners are in possession of 24 Ares 30 Sq. metres of land in R.S.Nos.103/1-1-1, 103/2-1-1, 103/1-2-1, 103/2-2-1, 103/1-3-1 and 103/3-3-1 of Perumbaikkadu Village, Kottayam District as per sale deed Nos.3098/2004, 3099/004 and 3100/2004. It is stated in the writ petition that for the last more than 40 years, the property is lying as dry land. Ext.P1 is the photographs showing the nature of the land. The photographs show that the the land is a developed land and that there are improvements like coconut trees and other trees standing in the property. ::2:: W.P.(C).No.21334 Of 2011 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Municipality is not entertaining the application for building permit for the reason that the land is mentioned as 'nilam' in the revenue records. This Court had occasions to consider such contentions raised in this writ petition in similar cases. 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, the learned counsel for the Municipality submitted that the application for building permit can be considered in accordance with law, after ascertaining the real nature of the property. The learned counsel for the Municipality also submitted that the application shall be considered on merits and appropriate orders shall be passed ::3:: W.P.(C).No.21334 Of 2011 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent Municipality to reconsider and pass appropriate orders, if the application for building permit filed by the petitioner is otherwise in order. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-