IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 30197 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. RAJASEKHARAN, S/O.LATE VISWANATHAN, AGED 38 YEARS, VISWASREE, 36/665, KESAVA MENON COLONY, OLAVAKKOD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. MUSTHAFFA, S/O.MUHAMMED MOIDEEN, AGED 38 YEARS, FAREEDA MANZIL, KODUNDHIRAPULLI P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD. 2. SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30197 of 2009(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO.2413/8 OF SRO, KUZHALMANDAM BY WHICH THE PETITIONER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, YAKKARA EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION MAP EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 30197 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenges Ext.P6 order whereby the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the property in question is included in the approved master plan as paddy field. The learned counsel for the Municipality submitted that the scheme in question had been re-submitted to the Government for certain modifications and the application submitted by the petitioner which was rejected as per Ext.P6, could be considered afresh in the light of the order of the Government on the said proposal. The impugned order is accordingly quashed to facilitate the petitioner to re-present the application for building permit and the Municipality to take appropriate decision thereon after obtaining the order of the Government on the proposal for modification. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. SD/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma True copy// P.A to Judge