IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 23788 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ABDUL RAHIM, S/O.MAMMU, KADAKKADAN HOUSE CHENGOTTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT: --------------- KURUVA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, KURUVA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676551. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23788 of 2011(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 19.8.2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: REJECTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD. 19.8.2011 AS NO.A3.4914/11. EXT.P3: CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KURUVA VILLAGE DTD. 11.8.2011. EXT.P4: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROEPRTIES OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL ..... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.23788 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P2 and for a direction commanding the respondent to reconsider the application for building permit on the basis of the plan and sketch submitted by the petitioner. 2. It is averred that the petitioner is the owner of 31 cents of properties in R.S.No.424/10 of Kuruva Village. The petitioner submitted an application for building permit for the construction of a commercial building in his property. Ext.P1 is the acknowledgment showing the receipt of the application for building permit. The application was rejected by the respondent stating that though the properties of the petitioner is a reclaimed land, the property is shown as 'nilam' in the revenue records. Ext.P2 is the copy of the order. 3. The petitioner submits that his property is a pucca dry land and as per the data bank the nature of the properties are shown as purayidam. The certificate issued by the Village Officer ::2:: W.P.(C).No.23788 Of 2011 stating that the properties of the petitioner as purayidam is marked as Ext.P3. Ext.P4 series are the photographs of the properties of the petitioner. Ext.P4 series photographs would go to show that the property is lying as a dry land. 4. 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). 4. In the above said circumstances, there will be a direction to the respondent to reconsider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-