IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22703 of 2011(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SURESHKUMAR, S/O.LATE.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT GIRISH BHAVAN, KUDAVECHUR.P.O, VAIKOM, PIN-686 144. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. VECHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUDAVECHOOR.P.O VAIKOM, PIN-686 144, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, VECHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUDAVECHOOR.P.O, VAIKOM,PIN-686 144. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VECHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM, PIN-686 144. R3 BY ADV.SRI. RAFEEQUE, GOVT. PLEADER R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG WP(C).No. 22703 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 616/92. EXT.P2 - COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. EXT.P3 - COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. EXT.P4 - COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 - COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGULARISATION OF CONSTRUCTION. EXT.P6 - COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING EXT.P5. EXT.P7 - COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P8 - COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P9 - COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P10 - COPY OF THE PHOTO OF THE BUILDING. EXT.P11 - COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH. EXT.P12 - COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P13 - COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH. EXT.P14 - COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P15 - COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P16 - COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P17 - COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE ADALATH. EXT.P18 - COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER ---2--- DG ---2--- WP(C).No. 22703 of 2011(K) EXT.P19 - COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FARMERS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE. EXT.P20 - COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P21 - COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE PETITIONERS BUILDING AND THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. EXT.P22 - COPY OF THE NEWS APPEARED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) - COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 12.03.2010. EXT.R2(a) - COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.05.2011. /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE DG HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 22703 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December 2011. JUDGMENT Writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P6 order and for a direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P5 application for regularisation of construction afresh and to give building number to the petitioner's building allowing Ext.P5. 2. Petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of 28.250 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 524/2/1 of Vechoor Village. Ext.P1 is the Sale Deed. Petitioner submits that at the time of purchase itself the property was a garden land. The petitioner purchased the property and building bearing Vechoor Panchayat Door No. 11/257. Petitioner constructed a shop room in the land. The said shop room is having an area of 52.08 M2 and its roof is made with asbestos sheets. Admittedly, the shop room was constructed without obtaining permit from the Panchayat. Ext.P4 is the copy of the stop memo dated 12.3.2010. Petitioner submits that when the construction of the said building was started, the Kerala Municipality Building Rules was not applicable to the Panchayat and therefore no permit was obtained from the Panchayat before making construction. After completing the construction work, the petitioner applied to the Panchayat W.P.(C) No.22703/2011 2 requesting to assign door number after regularisation of the construction. Ext.P5 is the copy of the application. The Panchayat rejected Ext.P5 application stating that since the said construction is made in paddy land and since the same is not a building for residential purposes, house number cannot be assigned. Ext.P6 is the order passed by the Panchayat. 3. Petitioner submits that the property though described as Nilam in the revenue records, remained as pucca dry land for the last several years. The description of the property mentioned in Ext.P1 sale deed dated 27. 4.1992 is that the property is a purayidom. It is pointed that at the time of purchase, there exists a building in the property. Petitioner also produced true copies of the possession certificate dated 14.8.2003 and 23.6.2005 issued by the 3rd respondent marked as Exts. P7 & P8 respectively. In Ext.P7 & P8 certificates, the property is described as Nikath purayidom i.e. reclaimed garden land. Petitioner also produced Ext. P10 photograph which shows the existence of building in the property and Ext.P10 photograph also indicates that the property is not a wet land or paddy land. Petitioner thereafter approached several authorities including Deputy Director of Panchayat and District Collector for ventilating his grievances. Ext.P15 is the copy of the statement filed by the Grama Panchayat before the District Collector. It is inter alia stated by the Secretary of the Panchayat in Ext.P15 that the property is a garden land. Ext.P18 is the copy of the communication issued by the Agricultural Officer to the Secretary Vechoor Grama Panchayat. In Ext.P18 it is W.P.(C) No.22703/2011 3 reported that the Agricultural Officer inspected the property and recommended grant of permit for construction of the building. So all the materials referred above would show that the property remained as purayidom for the last several years. The description in Ext.P1 sale deed shows that the property remained as purayidom even in the year 1992 and the fact that there was a building constructed prior to 1992 and a building is in existence as on the date of Ext.P1 sale deed. Therefore, the reasons stated in Ext.P6 for rejecting the application cannot stand. Petitioner submits that Ext.P6 order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 filed detailed counter affidavits denying the averments in the writ petition. 4. The Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Praveen v.Land Revenue Commissioner (2010(2) KLT 617) held that the nature of the property recorded in the village office as paddy field 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 Panchayat (2009(3)KLT 899). Following the said decision this Court had occasion to consider several orders passed by the local bodies rejecting the application for building permit. Following the said decision, this Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the Secretary of the local authority to pass appropriate orders. W.P.(C) No.22703/2011 4 In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to reconsider Ext.P5 application and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Ext.P6 order is quashed. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE al