IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 25886 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SHINE K.PHELIX, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.K.T.PHELIX, KURISINKAL HOUSE, GANDHIJI ROAD, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR-26. BY ADV. MR.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THRISSUR COPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THRISSUR CORPORATION, ZONAL OFFICE, OLLUR, PIN-680 306. 3. DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, PATTURIAKKAL, THRISSUR-680 001. ADV.MR.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC FOR TCR CORPRN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25886 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PATTAYAM ISSUED BY ERSTWHILE ROYAL GOVERNMENT OF KOCHI TO UNNULI W/O.KOLLPARAMBIL PAAPU. EXT.P2: BASIC TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P3: LETTER ISSUED TO PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. EXT.P4: LETTER OLR/BA/304/10-11 DTD. 15.3.2011. EXT.P5: ORDER OF REJECTION OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL .... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.25886 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P5 and for a direction commanding the respondent to reconsider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner applied for grant of a building permit for constructing a residential building. The application for building permit was rejected by Ext.P5 order for the reason that permission to the residential building up to 200 square metre can be granted as per Zoning Regulation 6(4) of Town Planning Scheme and the same is restricted to properties that are registered as paddy field prior to 31.5.2007. The petitioner submits that the property is a pucca dry land but in the revenue records it is recorded as paddy field. To correct the entry in the revenue records, the petitioner submitted an application before the RDO, Thrissur, to rectify the mistake regarding the description of the property. The RDO conducted an enquiry regarding the nature of the property and intimated the petitioner ::2:: W.P.(C).No.25886 Of 2011 that on enquiry it was found that the property was 'purayidam' in nature and therefore steps have been taken to correct the entries in the revenue records. The petitioner also submits that several houses are constructed around the petitioner's property and those constructions were made in the properties similar in nature to that of the petitioners. 3. This Court in the decision report in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009(3) KLT 899) considered similar question and held that the mere description of an item of property as 'Nilam' (paddy field) or wet land in revenue records, is not conclusive. This Court also held that the authorities shall consider the ground realties and shall not depend on the description of the property in the revenue records or title documents. Similar question was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that Ext.P5 requires reconsideration. In these circumstances, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to ::3:: W.P.(C).No.25886 Of 2011 reconsider and pass appropriate orders on the application for building permit, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of 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/-