IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20365 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUBHASH,AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MANIKKAN, PALAKKADAN HOUSE, MARELLAD DESOM, P.O.ASHTAMICHIRA, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. MR.RENJITH THAMPAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MALA, P.O.VADAMA, THRISSUR DIST., PIN 680 736. 2. MALA GRAMAPANCHAYAT, P.O.VADAMA, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 736 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV.MR.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1. MR.A.C.DEVY FOR R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20365 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: BASIC TAX RECEIPT DTD. 16.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.P2: POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DTD. 21.5.2011. EXT.P3: SETTLEMENT DEED DTD. 5.5.2011. EXT.P4: JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2009(3) KLT 899 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ........ // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.20365 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed for a direction directing the 2nd respondent to accept the building permit application filed by the petitioner and for other incidental reliefs. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 20 cents of land in survey No.483/1 of Vadakkumbhagom Village. Ext.P3 is the settlement deed relating to the ownership of the land. It is stated in the writ petition that for the last more than 50 years, the property is lying as a garden land. It is also pointed out in the writ petition that the Agricultural Officer certified that the land is a developed land for the last 30 years and that there are improvements like coconut trees and other trees aged more than 20 years standing in the property. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Panchayath is not entertaining the application for building permit for the reason that the land is mentioned as 'nilam' in the revenue records. This Court had occasions to consider such contentions raised in this writ petition in similar cases. 3. 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 ::2:: W.P.(C).No.20365 Of 2011 realty has to be considered before passing an order on the application for building permit. Similar view was taken by this Court in the decision report in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayath (2009 (3) KLT 899). 4. In the above said circumstances, the learned counsel for the Panchayath submitted that the application for building permit can be considered in accordance with law, after ascertaining the real nature of the property. The learned counsel for the Panchayath also submitted that if the petitioner submits an application for building permit within a week from today, the application shall be considered on merits and appropriate orders shall be passed within one month thereafter. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent Panchayath to consider and pass appropriate orders, if an application for building permit is filed by the petitioner within a week from today. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-