IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8675 of 2011(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.JACOB PHILIP,KOLLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SRI.BIJU SUKUMARAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS,KOTTAYAM 686 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS,KOTTAYAM 686 001. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY MATHEW, SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.8675 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The question whether mere description of a property as 'Nilam (paddy field)' in the revenue records or such other records can be a reason for rejecting an application for building permit is the issue involved in this Writ Petition. Obviously, the said issue is no more res integra in view of the fact that the said question had been considered and decided by this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayath reported in 2009 (3) KLT 899) and subsequently, the same was affirmed by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner reported in 2010 (2) KLT 617. 2. In this case, the petitioner who is the owner in possession of 18.05 Ares of land in Re.Sy.No.98 of block No.85 in Kottayam village filed Ext.P5 application for building permit before the respondents. The same was rejected as per Ext.P4. Apparently, the reason assigned for rejection of the said application is that in the sale deed, the property in question was described as 'Nilam' (paddy field)'. So also, in the possession certificate issued in respect of the said property, it was described as 'Nilam W.P.(C) NO.8675/2011 2 (paddy field)'. It is solely relying on the said description in the sale deed as also in the possession certificate that the application for building permit was rejected holding that it is 'Nilam (paddy field)' and therefore, building permit could not be issued as requested by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice with respect to the endorsement in Ext.P5 and file notes which the petitioner had obtained under the Right to Information Act. Undoubtedly, they would go to show that taking note of the aforesaid judgments of this Court, the competent authority virtually, directed for an inspection of the property in question belonging to the petitioner to know the real nature and lie of the property. It would also show that pursuant to such an inspection, it was categorically found that though the property in question had been described as a 'Nilam' (paddy field)', in troth, it is not so and it is full of yielding and non- yielding coconut trees and other trees. When that be the position obtained from the inspection made by the competent authorities, in the light of the judgments referred above (supra), there is absolutely no justification for the respondents to reject the application for building permit solely relying on the description of the property in question in the sale deed as also in the possession certificate as 'Nilam (paddy field)'. In W.P.(C) NO.8675/2011 3 the light of the judgment reported in 2009(3) KLT 899 (supra) and in 2010 (2) KLT 617 (supra), I am of the view that Ext.P4 order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 application for building permit afresh taking into account the decisions referred above and the report obtained through the inspection pursuant to the receipt of Ext.P5 application. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.8675/2011 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.8675/2011 5