IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13959 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MA' DINU SSAQUAFATHIL ISLAMIYYA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, SAYYED IBRAHIMUL KHALEEL-UL BUKHARI, MA'DINU SSAQUAFATHIL ISLAMIYYA, SWALATH NAGAR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR SRI.BABU S. NAIR, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 13963 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.13959/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPIES OF THE REGISTERED TITLE DEEDS WITHNOS.418/7,6, 8 DT.22.8.2001, 29.1.2004 AND 17.3.2004 TOGETHER WITH BASIC TAX RECEIPTS. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN FOR THE SCHOOL BUILDING AT MELMURI AS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DT 17.9.04 ISSUED BYMALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P4: TRUE COPIES OF THE ORDERS DT. 11.5.1993, 10.3.2004 AND 2.2.2005. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 10.12.2007 IN WPC NO.34077/07. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NOs. 13959 & 13963 OF 2008 ======================= Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T In WP(C) No.13959/08, petitioner has produced as Ext.P4 series, orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and also District Collector permitting conversion of the land in question. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the strength of Ext.P4 series of orders, land has already been converted and is now a pucca garden land. It is therefore stated that irrespective of its classification in the Town Planning Scheme, or in the revenue records, the land in question is a garden land and therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's application for building permit relying entirely on the Town Planning Scheme is illegal. 2. In so far as petitioner in WP(C) No.13963/08 is concerned, there again Ext.P4 has been produced, which is a permit issued by the RDO, permitting conversion. Here again, it is stated that the land in question has been reclaimed on the strength of Ext.P4 and therefore the statement in Ext.P3 rejecting the application for building permit is illegal. 3. If as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the lands in question are reclaimed and are pucca garden land, ignoring its WPC 13959 & 13963/08 :2 : conversion and the present nature of the land, rejection of the application for building permit cannot be upheld. Therefore, the matter needs to be reconsidered by the 3rd respondent, having regard to the nature of the land as it obtains today. 4. In order to enable the 3rd respondent to reconsider the mater, I direct that the petitioner shall produce before the 3rd respondent copies of the orders permitting conversion of the land and on receipt thereof, the 3rd respondent shall conduct an inspection of the lands and on such inspection if he finds that the orders referred to above are in relation to the lands in respect of which applications have been made by the petitioners and that the lands have been already reclaimed, irrespective of Ext.P3 in these cases, applications made by the petitioner shall be reconsidered and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp