IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 23027 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SURENDRAN.N., NEETTOLIL HOUSE, KADAVATHUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED AGENT, WIFE, CHANDRI NEETTOLIL HOUSE, KADAVATHUR PO., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. PERINGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, PERINGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR DISTRICT.PIN-670 001. ADV. MR.R.SURENDRAN FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23027 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: ASSIGNMENT DEED DTD. 16.11.1988. EXT.P2: ORDER DTD. 8.4.2011 ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: PHOTOGRAPHS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): CIRCULAR NO.45846/R.A1/LSGD DTD. 31.7.2008 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. .... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.23027 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P2 and for a direction directing the respondents to grant building permit to the petitioner as applied for. 2. The petitioner is in possession of 4 ¾ cents of property comprised in R.S.No.59/4 of Peringalam Grama Panchayath. The petitioner obtained the said property as per Ext.P1 deed dated 16.11.1988. For the purpose of constructing a residential building in the said property the petitioner submitted an application for building permit. The grievance of the petitioner is that the application was rejected stating that the property of the petitioner is shown as 'Nilam'. 3. The petitioner submits that during the year 1963, the then owner filled the nilam and converted it into a kuni and planted coconut tress and other trees in the property. Ext.P3 is the photographs showing the nature of the property. 4. The learned standing counsel for the Panchayath in the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Panchayath stated that the prohibition in respect of cultivation of paddy land with any other crop or filling up of land for construction of commercial building came in to effect since 1958 itself, that from Ext.P1 ::2:: W.P.(C).No.23027 Of 2011 document it is clear that in 1963 the land was a paddy land and it was reclaimed prior to 1988 and therefore, reclamation of land without previous permission from the authorities concerned is illegal. 5. 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). In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ext.P2 order is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner 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. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-