IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18623 of 2008(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- SRI.RAJENDRAPRASAD, S/O. GOPINATHA MENON (LATE), "KAIVALLYAM", WEST THARA, KOLLAMKODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. KOLLANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOLLANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT. 3. THE R.D.O., OTTAPALAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLENGODE. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN - R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18623/2008 P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. EXT.P2; COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.806/08 DTD. 5/05/08 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.1409/08 DTD. 15/05/08 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.5767427 DTD. 22/05/2008 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLAMGODE. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE. EXT.P6: COPY OF APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DTD. 20/05/2008. EXT.P7: COPY OF REQUEST BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 18623 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 17, 2008 JUDGMENT Non-acceptance of Ext.P6 application for a building permit submitted by the petitioner to the 1st respondent Panchayat is what is complained of in this writ petition. 2. Referring to Ext.P1 series of photographs, petitioner contends that the land in question is a fully reclaimed land. Although it is so, without any regard to the actual state of affairs, the land is indicated as a “nilam” in the revenue records. This, according to the petitioner, is the only reason for the Panchayat's refusal to accept the land tax. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat submits that irrespective of what is indicated in Ext.P1, the fact remains that admittedly a major portion of 4.5 cents of land in the possession of the petitioner is classified as “nilam” in the revenue records. According to him it was WP(C) 18623/08 2 therefore that the Secretary of the Panchayat had advised the petitioner to obtain an order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order in view of the circular issued by the Government of Kerala in that behalf. 4. Thus, it is obvious that the only reason for not accepting Ext.P6 application is the fact that a portion of the land in the possession of the petitioner is described as “nilam” in the revenue records. Ext.P1 series of photographs certainly support the plea of the petitioner that for the last several years the land has been a reclaimed one and is a fully developed garden land. If that be so, I do not think that for the only reason that the nomenclature used in the revenue records is “nilam”, without any regard to the actual state of affairs, an order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order should be insisted. 5. In view of this, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the petitioner shall submit Ext.P6 application to the Secretary of the 1st respondent Panchayat and on WP(C) 18623/08 3 receipt thereof, the Secretary shall inspect the land in question. Thereupon, if he is satisfied that the land is a fully developed garden land, he shall consider Ext.P6 on merits without insisting on an order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Petitioner undertakes to submit Ext.P6 before 30.7.2008 and if it is so received, the aforesaid process shall be completed and orders passed by the Secretary of the Panchayat within four weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-