IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14528 of 2011(M) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- NOUFAL N., S/O. IBRAHIM N., AGED 28 YEARS, NOTTATHU HOUSE, VARANKODE, DOWN HILL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM-676 503. 2. SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM-676 503. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.S.M. KABEER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2011 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.30701 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.14528/2011 M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RDO, PERINTHALMANNA DTD. 8/10/2003. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30/04/2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)Nos. 14528, 14529, 14543 OF 2011 & 30701 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The issue involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered in favour of the petitioners by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner reported in 2010 (2) KLT 617. The petitioners are owners in absolute possession of different extent of land within the limits of the Malappuram Municipality filed applications for building permit before the said common respondent. Their respective applications were rejected on the ground that the respective properties belonging to the petitioners have been described in the relevant records as Paddy field. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondents have rejected their applications for building permit on the aforesaid ground without actually looking into the real nature of the property in question. In Praveen's case (supra), it was held by this Court that while considering up the applications for building permit, WPC.14528/2011 & connected : 2 : the description of the concerned property in the relevant records is not the relevant factor whilst what matters is its actual nature. In WPC No.14528/2011, 14529/2011 and 14543/2011, the petitioners have produced the orders passed by the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer under the Kerala Land Utilization Order permitting them to convert their respective lands as Ext.P1. In WPC No.30701/2010 Ext.P2 is the order granting permission to the petitioner to convert the land in question passed under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The specific contention of the petitioners is that on the strength of such orders issued by the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order they have converted their respective land long ago and, as such, they are not paddy fields as alleged by the respondents and as described in the concerned relevant records. These crucial aspects were not taken into consideration while rejecting their application for building permit. In the circumstances, relying on the decision in Praveen's case(Supra) the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the impugned orders rejecting their respective applications for building permit require reconsideration. WPC.14528/2011 & connected : 3 : 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the issue involved in these cases is squarely covered in favour of the petitioners by the decision in Praveen's case (supra). As already noticed hereinbefore, the petitioners have produced orders passed by the competent authorities under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and it is their specific case that on the strength of the said orders they have already converted their respective land as dry land. Since their applications were rejected solely relying on the description of their respective land in the respective record as paddy field and the aforesaid crucial aspect was not actually verified prior to the passing of the impugned orders I am of the considered view that they require reconsideration. In the said circumstances, the impugned orders in all these writ petitions viz., Ext.P2 in WPC Nos.14528/2011, 14529/2011 & 14543/2011 and Ext.P1 in WPC No.30701/2010 are set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the applications for building permit submitted respectively by the petitioners referred to in the impugned orders and pass orders WPC.14528/2011 & connected : 4 : thereon in accordance with law taking into account the decision of this Court in Praveen's case (supra) and also after ascertaining the actual nature of the properties involved in these writ petitions. This shall be done expeditiously at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge