IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27145 of 2011(P) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MUHAMMED ABDURAHIMAN, S/O. ABOOBACKER, KALLINGAL HOUSE, MELATTUR.P.O.-679326, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, MANJERI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PIN-676121. 2. SECRETARY, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY MANJERI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676121. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-676001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.RAFEEQUE V.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.27145/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE JENM ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.5620/1993 OF SRO MANJERI. P2;-TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PURCHASE NO.11217/1977 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND TRIBUNAL-1, MALAPPURAM. P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17-8-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.5855/2011 DATED 25-08-2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NARUKARA VILLAGE. P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P6:-LOCATION SKETCH, PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NARUKARA. P7:-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE/ORDER VICE NO.E3/5780/11 DATED 06-09-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8(A):-TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. 8(B):-TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. 8(C):-TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. 8(D);-TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. 8(E):-TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. 8(F):-TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.27145 OF 2011 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner claimed that he is in absolute ownership and possession of 16 cents of land comprised in R.S.No.277/1 of Narukara Village in Ernad Taluk. The petitioner submits that the description of property is shown as 'paramba' in Ext.P1 assignment deed, that there were no agricultural operations or any sort of cultivation in the property after purchase by the petitioner or even prior to that and that the petitioner had approached the 1st respondent Municipality by submitting an application for building permit. The Secretary of the Municipality by Ext.P7 order rejected the application for building permit for the reason that the nature of the property, for which the permission was sought for construction of the building, is shown as ‘nilam’ in the revenue records and therefore the permission cannot be granted. The petitioner submitted an application on 17/8/2011 for building -2- W.P.(C).No.27145/2011 permit and the same is pending consideration before the 2nd 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 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 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 2nd respondent shall consider and dispose of the application for building permit dated 17/8/2011, after ascertaining the real nature -3- W.P.(C).No.27145/2011 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. It is made clear that the judgment does not stand in the way of implementing any scheme or for acquisition of property for any public purpose in future. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.