IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 7668 of 2011(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- T.N.CHANDRASEKARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, THURPUMADATHIL HOUSE, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER T.N.SUBRAMANYAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, THURPUMADATHIL HOUSE, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK,THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. VALLACHIRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VALLACHIRA P.O- 680 562, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, VALLACHIRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VALLACHIRA P.O- 680 562, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VALLACHIRA P.O.-680 562, THRISSUR (THE CONVENER, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE VALLACHIRA). 4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 7668/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.5119/06/OF CHERPU SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE. P2: COPY OF THERECEIPT IN PROOF OF SUBMITTED APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED 22/06/2009. P3: COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/09/2009. P4: PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT NATURE AND LIE OF THE LAND P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.D.O. THRISSUR. P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23/10/2010. P7: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01/12/2010. P8: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06/12/2011. P9: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE DATED 22/09/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7668 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July 2011. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 order and for a direction directing the 2nd respondent to grant building permit for constructing residential building in 10 cents of land owned by the petitioner comprised in survey no. 382/2 of Arrattpuzha village in Thrissur Taluk. Petitioner owns 34.89 cents of land in survey No. 382/2. The petitioner obtained the property by virtue of a settlement deed executed by his father in the year 2006. Ext.P1 is the settlement deed. The nature of the property described in Ext.P1 is reclaimed land. 2. Petitioner submitted an application for building permit before the 2nd respondent - Panchayat. Ext.P2 is the application. The application for permit was rejected by the 2nd respondent Secretary of the Panchayat for the reason that the land is described as W.P.(C) No. 7668 of 2011 2 reclaimed land in the revenue records. Ext.P3 is the order dated 29.9.09. 3. 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). 4. Referred above are cases in which the nature of the property was recorded as paddy land in the revenue records. Even in such cases, this court directed that the nature of the property recorded in the revenue records is not a reason for rejecting the building permit and further held that the ground reality has to be taken into account. In this case in Ext.P1, the nature of the property stated is reclaimed land. The Secretary of the Panchayat rejected the application for building permit for the reason that the W.P.(C) No. 7668 of 2011 3 nature of the property is reclaimed land. Ext.P1 is the settlement deed of the year 2006. That means the nature of the property is not wet land even on the date of settlement. Whether the property remained as reclaimed land for the last several years, is a matter for enquiry. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court to contend that no building can be constructed in a reclaimed property. The Secretary is at liberty to make enquiry as to the nature of the land before passing the order. Petitioner submits that the land was reclaimed several years back, that surrounding property owners constructed building in their property and all the properties are enjoyed by the respective owners by making constructions. According to the petitioner, there are several coconut trees and plantain in the property and the property was always enjoyed by the petitioner as a dry land. According to the petitioner, the property is a dry land suitable for making construction. In the facts and circumstances, the decision of the Secretary of the Panchayat rejecting the application for building permit cannot be sustained. W.P.(C) No. 7668 of 2011 4 5. In the result, Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the Secretary of the Panchayat. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE al