IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30116 of 2011(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------- BIJU A. LATHEEF, ALAYIL HOUSE, PERUNNA P.O, CHANGANASSERY-2. BY ADVS. SRI. N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENTS : ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, THRIKKODITHANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, O/O THE THRIKKODITHANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRIKKODITHANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 105. 2. THRIKKODITHANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, O/O THE THRIKKODITHANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRIKKODITHANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 105, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.SURESH SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DSV/- WP(C).No. 30116 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT P1 : TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY EXT P2 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DATED 07/10/2011. EXT P3 : COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE EXT P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.AE-5734/11 DATED 25/10/2011 EXT P5 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06/09/2011 IN W.P.(C) NO.24353/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT R1(A) : COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERTY (THE LAND COMPRISED IN SY.NO.135/12 AND 135/13) EXT R1(B) : COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 18.10.2011 OF THE ASST. ENGINEER, LSGD, THRIKKODITHANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH EXT R1(C) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK RECORDS EXT R1(D) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE BTR REGISTER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DSV/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 30116 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December 2011. JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P4 order and for a direction commanding the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application in the light of the dictum laid down by this Hon'ble High court in 2009(3) KL 899 and 2010(2) KLT 617 and to issue development permit to the petitioner in respect of the properties in Sy.Nos. 135/12 & 135/13 in Block No. 8 in Thrikodithanam Village in Changanassery Taluk. 2. Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application for development permit with supporting documents. Ext.P2 application was rejected for the reason that petitioner's property is described as (Nilam) paddy field as per Ext.P3 possession certificate issued by the Village Officer. 3. Petitioner submits that the property owned by the petitioner wherein he proposed to construct the building is a dry W.P.(C) No.30116/2011 2 land and that large number of coconut trees aged more than 25 years are situated in the property. Petitioner submits that Ext.P3 possession certificate was issued by the Village Officer with reference to the revenue records. The Village Officer has merely copied the entries in the basic tax register and other revenue records kept in his office which are prepared decades ago and therefore, it has no relevance what so ever with the actual status of the property in question. It is pointed out that it is obligatory on the part of the Secretary to make site inspection to ascertain the lie, location and character of the land in respect of which the application for development permit was submitted. 4. Petitioner submits that his property is lying as dry land for the last several years and that the Secretary of the Panchayat ought to have conducted site inspection to ascertain the real nature of the property before passing orders on the application submitted by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the decisions reported in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. W.P.(C) No.30116/2011 3 Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009(3)KLT 899 and in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2)KLT 617). The Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Praveen v.Land Revenue Commissioner (2010(2) KLT 617) held that the nature of the property recorded in the village office as paddy field 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 Panchayat (2009 (3)KLT 899). This Court held that a mere description of the property in the revenue records by itself may not be conclusive and that ground realities have to be considered before passing orders on the application for building permit. 6. In the above said circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4 order is illegal and liable to be quashed. Petitioner also produced Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C) No. 24353/2011. The question now raised in the writ petition is considered by this Court in the decision in Ext.P5 judgment. W.P.(C) No.30116/2011 4 Following the decision referred above, this Court set aside the impugned order in that case directing the respondent Grama Panchayat to consider the application for building permit afresh taking into account the decisions referred above and the report obtained through inspection. 7. In the circumstances, Ext.P4 order is set aside. There will be a direction to the Secretary of the first respondent Grama Panchayat to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 application for grant development permit afresh and pass appropriate order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and after perusing the materials on record, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE al