IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 19655 of 2011(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O.MOIDUNNI, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, OTHALOOR (PO), PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE ALAMCODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, NANNAMUKKU (PO), PIN-679 575, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, ALAMCODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NANMUKKU (PO), PIN-679 575, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN,SC SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.19655/2011 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.950/1995 OF S.R.O., EDAPPAL DTD. 28/03/1995. P2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION 06/03/2010 FIXING FARE VALUE OF LAND IN THE ALAMCODE PANCHAYATH. P3: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER ALAMCODE DTD. 05/07/2011. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 22/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.19655 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P4 order and for a direction commanding the respondent to reconsider the application of the petitioner in the light of Ext.P2 & P3 reports and the precedents, reported decisions of this Court and to grant building permit to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner applied for permission for the construction of a commercial building in the property owned by him. The application was rejected by the 2nd respondent stating that the description of the property of the petitioner in the village records is mentioned as 'nanja' and hence Panchayath does not have any power to issue building permit. 3. The petitioner submits that his property and surrounding lands are residential plots lying as dry land. The petitioner submits that the property was paddy field about 30 years before his purchase, that the prior owners converted it into a residential plot and has planted coconut trees which are more ::2:: W.P.(C).No.19655 Of 2011 than 30 years now. It is pointed out that in the surrounding lands, commercial and residential buildings are constructed and said lands are also dry lands. The petitioner produced a copy of the notification dated 6.3.2010 fixing the fair value of the land in Alamcode Panchayath. Ext.P2 would show that the property of the petitioner is a residential property situated in R.S.No.62/6A1 of Alamcode Village without road access. Ext.P3 is the true copy of the report of the Agricultural Officer, Alamcode dated 5.7.2011 certifying that the property of the petitioner is a reclaimed land for the last more than 20 years and that the said property is not fit for paddy cultivation. It is pointed out that from Exts.P2 & P3 reports it is clear that the property of the petitioner is a residential plot which does not come under the category of agricultural/paddy lands. It is pointed out that Ext.P4 order was passed without conducting any enquiry or inspection by the authorities and that if inspected it would revealed that petitioner's property and surrounding lands are residential properties and hence the Panchayath has the power to issue building permit. ::3:: W.P.(C).No.19655 Of 2011 4. 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). 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ext.P4 order is quashed. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for further action. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-