IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 16016 of 2008(F) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- VINCENT AGED 51, S/O ALAPPADAN MATHUNNI, PULLUR VILLAGE DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PULLUR VILLAGE OFFICE, PULLUR POST, IRINJALAKUDA VIA. 3. MURIYAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MURIYAD P.O, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR-R1&R2 ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN KUTTY FOR R3 SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S. FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.16016/2008 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED DGD. 25/10/2000. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P2(A): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 26/06/2007 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE HOUSE OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4(A): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE HOUSE AND PROPERTY. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 9/05/2008 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR NUMBERING THE BUILDING. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.11/04/2008 IN WP(C)11877/2008. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 11/04/2008 IN WP(C)11878/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16016/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5. 3. Petitioner submits that he has completed construction of a residential house in a plot of land belonging to him in Survey No.601/4 of Pullur village coming within the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent Panchayat. According to him, the land in question is a fully developed garden land, with trees including yielding coconut trees. It is stated that, on completion of the construction, he submitted an application to the respondent Panchayat for assigning number to the building. 4. On receipt of that application, the Panchayat passed Ext.P5, refusing to number the building on the ground that WP(c).No.16016/2008 2 in the revenue records, the land in question is classified as `Nilam'. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the factual basis on which Ext.P5 has been issued is erroneous and in order to prove this aspect he has produced photographs, Exts.P2 and Ext.P4 series. It cannot be disputed that, a perusal of these photographs show that the land in question is a fully developed garden land with several constructions in the neighbourhood. According to the petitioner, even in the title deed, Ext.P1, this property is described as reclaimed land. 5. Apart from all this, learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on Exts.P6 and P7, the judgments rendered by this court granting relief in identical circumstances. 6. From the photographs referred to above, the genuineness of which is not disputed, I am satisfied that the description of the property in the revenue records is totally unrelated to the factual situation that is available. If that be so, I see no reason to uphold the stand of the 3rd WP(c).No.16016/2008 3 respondent in declining to number the building for the only reason that the nomenclature used in the revenue records is `Nilam' while the land is a fully developed garden land. 7. Therefore, I quash Ext.P5 and direct that the Secretary of the Panchayat shall inspect the land in question and if the land in question is a reclaimed garden land as stated by the petitioner, the Panchayat shall pass fresh orders on the application made by the petitioner, ignoring the nomenclature used in the revenue records, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the Pachayat for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.16016/2008 4