IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 280 of 2011(H) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.K.ABDULLA, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.UNNEEN HAJI, K.K.MANZIL, PAITHIRI PARAMBU, MELMURI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD, SMT.S.GIFFARA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM-676 505. 2. SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM-676 505. R1 BY SRI.E.S.M.KABEER, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.280 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 31st January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the co-owner of properties having an extent of 3.03 ares of land in Re-survey No.469/2B2 and 5.45 ares of land in Re-survey No.469/2B2 and 3B of Panakkad Village. Messrs K.K.Hamsa and P.N.Hamsa are its other co-owners. The aforesaid properties are lying as a single plot. They purchased the property as per Ext.P1 sale deed. Later, they filed an application for building permit on 27.11.2010. In fact, it is for constructing a commercial building in the aforesaid land that such an application was filed. The said application was rejected as per Ext.P4 on the ground that the land in question is a paddy filed lying within the DTP Scheme area and therefore, carrying out any such construction thereon is impermissible. It is challenging Ext.P4 order of rejection of the application for building permit that this writ petition has been filed. 2. According to the petitioner, the reason assigned in Ext.P4 for rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner is absolutely unsustainable and, in fact, such a reason was assigned without ascertaining the actual state of affairs. The contention of the petitioner is that Exts.P2 and P3 would reveal that his predecessor-in-interest had WP(C).No.280/2011 2 submitted appropriate applications under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and the competent authority under the said Order viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer passed Exts.P2 and P3 orders permitting his predecessor-in-interest to convert the said land. Ext.P2 pertains to 3.03 ares of land in Re-survey No.469/2B2 and Ext.P3 pertains to 5.45 ares of land in Re-survey No.469/2B2 and 3B of Panakkad Village. It is further submitted that on the strength of the permission granted as per Exts.P2 and P3 his predecessor-in-interest had converted the paddy filed. In short, the contention of the petitioner is that much prior to the submission of the application for building permit the land in question was converted and it is not a paddy field as held in Ext.P4. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for rejecting the same assigning the aforesaid reason. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is without looking into the said crucial aspect that the application for building permit was rejected by the respondents. A Division Bench of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617) held that the description of a property in the revenue records cannot be the reason for rejecting an application for building permit and the authority is bound to ascertain the true nature of the land in question while considering such an application. WP(C).No.280/2011 3 It is evident from Ext.P4 that the application for building permit was rejected under the misconception that the land in question is a paddy filed and, therefore, it is impermissible to grant permission under the DTP Scheme. When once it is found that the impugned order is founded on misconception of facts, it is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner and the other co-owners on 27.11.2010 for permission to construct a commercial building in the land in question. Such orders shall be passed on the aforesaid application expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to Judge