IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7309 of 2009(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ RAPHAEL JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, KOTTANADAN HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM P.O., KURUPPAMPADY, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY RAYAMANGALAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 7309 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner states that, in the 25 cents of land own by him and situated in R.S.No.73/18 in block No.16 of Rayamangalam Village, he wanted to construct a shed for an SSI unit. However, the land was shown as Nilam in the revenue records and therefore the Chief Town Planner while approving the plan imposed a condition that clearance under the Land Utilisation Order should be obtained. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application to the 3rd respondent which resulted in Ext.P15 order declining the permit on the ground that the land is described as Nilam in the revenue records. 2. According to the petitioner this land is a fully developed garden land and has never been under paddy cultivation. He refers to Exts.P13 to P14 reports submitted WP(c).N.7309/09 2 by the Village Officer and the Tahsildar. In this regard counsel also makes reference to Exts.P16 and P17 judgments rendered by this court in WP(c).No.16016/08 and 11877/08, where applications were ordered to be considered in the light of the real nature of the land. 3. As already noticed, the specific case of the petitioner is that though the land has been shown as Nilam in the revenue records the land in question is actually a garden land. This submission of the counsel seems to be supported by Exts.P13 and P14 reports referred to above. He is also fully justified in relying on Exts.P16 and P17 judgments of this court. Therefore I am not in a position to approve the view taken by the 3rd respondent in Ext.P15 and in my view the matter needs to be reconsidered in the light of the reports and the judgments referred to above. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P15 and directing that the 3rd respondent shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner seeking permission for WP(c).N.7309/09 3 conversion sought under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Orders shall be passed taking into account the reports and the judgments referred to above. Petitioner may produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).N.7309/09 4