IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31315 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. THOMAS,S/O.JOSEPH,CHELAKKANDATHIL, THEKKUMBHAGAM POST-685 585,THODUPUZHA. 2. SHIBU JOSEPH,CHELAKKANDATHIL, THEKKUMBHAGAM POST-685 585,THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.MATHEW JOHN (K) MR.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE IDAVETTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IDAVETTY POST, 685 588, THODUPUZHA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, IDAVETTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IDAVETTY POST, 685 588,THODUPUZHA. ADV. MR.GEORGE MATHEW FOR R1-2 MR.DIPU JAMES FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31315 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 23/2/2011 EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 3/3/2011 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF TAX BY THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EXHIBIT P3(A):A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EXHIBIT P3(B):A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 2/3/2011 EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 6/7/2011 EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 2/11/2011 EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 18/11/2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL .... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.31315 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011. J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P8, to declare that the petitioners are entitled to be granted building permit for the construction of a commercial building in the property covered by Ext.P1 document pursuant to their application for building permit dated 22.3.2011 and for a direction commanding respondents 1 & 2 to issue necessary building permits to the petitioners for the construction of a commercial building in the property covered by Ext.P1 pursuant to their application dated 22.3.2011 treating the land as dry land. 2. The petitioners are the owners in possession of 5.83 Ares of dry land in survey No.110/2 in Block No.33 of Karikkode Village as per Ext.P1 document. The petitioners submitted an application for building permit for the purpose of constructing a commercial building in the said property. The 2nd respondent, Secretary of the Panchayath rejected the application of the petitioners vide Ext.P8 stating that property is recorded as 'nilam' in the possession certificate and therefore, permission cannot be granted for the construction of a commercial building. ::2:: W.P.(C).No.31315 Of 2011 3. Petitioners submit that though in the document the nature of the land is referred to as 'nilam', the property is lying as pucca dry land for the past more than 20 years with improvements aged more than 15 years. Petitioners produced Ext.P3 series photographs to show that the the property is lying as a dry land. The Agricultural Officer in Ext.P5 also certified that the land is a dry land and there are improvements like coconut trees, Anjili trees, Arecanut trees etc. aged more than 15 years. The Village Officer, in Ext.P7 possession certificate, though described the property as 'nilam', reported that there are yielding coconut trees aged more than 15 years. Petitioners submit that the adjoining lands are also dry lands and there are buildings in those properties as well and Ext.P8 order passed by the 2nd respondent is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 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 ::3:: W.P.(C).No.31315 Of 2011 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). Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application for building permit, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for further action. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-