IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4901 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ISAC JOHN COTTADIYIL,KOTTADIYIL KOTTAGE, EREEZHA SOUTH.B.O.CHEETIKULANGAR.P.O,MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.BY POWER OF ATTONNEY HOLDER- K.S. SATHEESH BABU,KANJIRATHIL,THIRUVATHUKKAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,AYMANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.4901 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of the property comprised in Re-Survey No.46/5/1/ to 46/5/4 of Aymanam Village, Aymanam Grama Panchayath. The petitioner has already put up a Resort Hotel Building and the Aymanam Grama Panchayat numbered it as III/540D and ownership certificate has already been issued to the petitioner as entrusted by Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the true photograph of the said hotel building. The petitioner requires the completion of the landscaping of the premises for the purpose of making the tourists hotel more attractive. Before starting this, he requested the first respondent to grant permission for transportation of earth to the property and Ext.P4 is the copy of the application. The first respondent forwarded Ext.P4 application to the 2nd respondent, Village Officer, Aymanam for enquiry and report. The Village Officer after conducting a visit to the property reported that there is no objection in giving permission for bringing earth to the property W.P.(C)No.4901 of 2010 2 for undertaking the landscaping work. Ext.P5 is the true copy of the report. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Revenue Divisional Officer has to take a decision on the plea. In the old Basic Tax Register the property shown as 'Nilam'. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision reported in Shahanaz Shukkoor Vs. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009 KHC 4499). This Court held therein that an item of property as 'Nilam' (paddy field) or wetland, in the revenue records, is insufficient to assume that the land cannot be used for any purpose other than those for which a paddy field or wet land can be used. The actual fact situation will have to be considered and not depending upon the description in revenue records. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed that the first respondent may be directed to take a decision on the application in accordance with law as declared by this Court in the above mentioned case and in accordance with the report forwarded by the Village Officer. 5. There will be a direction to the first respondent to take a decision in respect of Ext.P4 application within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this W.P.(C)No.4901 of 2010 3 judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj