IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16251 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. SANJEEV KUMAR, S/O THANKAMMA, CHENGANATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELOOKARA VILLAGE, NADAVARAMBA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. SREE RANJINI, W/O. SANJEEV KUMAR, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELOOKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTENELLUR POST THRISSUR DISTRICT, 3. THE SECRETARY VELOOKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTENELLUR POST, THRISSUR. 4. THE R.D.O, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).16251/2008-I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 26/07/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P2(a):COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/11/2007 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01/04/2008 IN W.P.(C).10375/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01/04/2008 IN W.P.(C).10376/2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/03/2008 IN W.P.(C).7419/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 16251OF 2008 I = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th June 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P3 order of the 3rd respondent is under challenge. 2. This order has been issued in response to an application made by the petitioner for the issue of a building permit for constructing a residential house in the 10 cents of land acquired by him as per Ext. P1 title deed. The reason stated in Ext. P3 order is that the property has been described in the schedule to Ext. P1 as a reclaimed land and therefore the 3rd respondent states that the matter has been referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer. 3. Petitioner contends that since the issuance of Ext. P3 on 27.11.2007, there has not been any progress on his application. It is his contention that the land is a fully reclaimed garden land with yielding coconut trees. It is stated that the authorities cannot be guided purely by the nomenclature used in the title deed or revenue records, but should deal with the application taking into account the W.P.(C) No. 16251 OF 2008 -2- nature of the land as it is obtaining at present. He is also relying on Exts. P4, P5 and P6 judgments rendered by this Court taking the aforesaid stand. 4. Though notice has been served on the 3rd respondent, there is no appearance on their behalf. 5. The only reason stated in Ext. P3 is that the property is shown as reclaimed land in Ext. P1 title deed. Petitioner has produced as Ext. P2, photographs of the property, the correctness of which is not disputed by any one of the respondents. Ext. P2 photographs show that the property is reclaimed land planted with yielding coconut trees which obviously means that the land must have been reclaimed years ago. If that be so, I do not think that the 3rd respondent could be purely guided by the nomenclature used in Ext. P1 title deed or elsewhere. On the other hand, the situation as it is now obtaining is what is relevant. In view of this, Ext. P3 will stand quashed and the 3rd respondent will reconsider the application made by the petitioner taking into account the observation made herein above and pass fresh orders as W.P.(C) No. 16251 OF 2008 -3- expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-