IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 37970 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ANOOP.K.G., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.K.T.GANGADHARAN, KAIPAPLACKAL HOUSE, KOTTAT P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR MS.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT: --------------- CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY REP.BY SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHALAKUDY, PIN-680 307. BY ADV.MR.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 37970 of 2010(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: BASIC TAX RECEIPT DTD. 2.12.2010. EXT.P2: POSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD. 3.12.2010. EXT.P3: BASIC TAX REGISTER OF PADINJARE CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE. EXT.P4: DECISION REPORTED IN 2009(1) KLT 123. EXT.P5: DECISION REPORTED IN 2009(3) KLT 899. EXT.P6: REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1 DTD. 15.12.2010. EXT.P7: RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY DTD. 28.7.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.37970 Of 2010 ---------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner owns and possesses 23 cents of land in West Chalakkudy Village. The petitioner submits that the property is a garden land and it is lying as a garden land for the past more than 20 years, that the petitioner had approached the 1st respondent Municipality in connection with the submission of an application for building permit. It is averred in the writ petition that the Secretary of the Municipality did not entertain the application for building permit stating that the nature of the land in the revenue records is shown as ‘nilam’ and therefore the application cannot be entertained. The petitioner submitted an application on 28.7.2011 for building permit and the same is pending consideration before the respondent. 2. This Court had occasion to consider similar matter in which the nature of the property is recorded as paddy land in the village records, but, in reality, those properties are garden land. A Division Bench of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617) held that the nature of the ::2:: W.P.(C).No.37970 Of 2010 property recorded in the village office as paddy land is not a reason for rejecting the application for permit and that the ground realty 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). 3. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the respondent shall consider and dispose of the application for building permit dated 28.7.2011, after ascertaining the real nature of the property, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and after taking into consideration the legal principles referred above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if the application is otherwise in order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-