IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9671 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SETHUKUMAR, AGED 4 2 YEARS, S/O.K.K.UNNITHAN, KALLUVATHIL VEEDU, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY, PALLICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PAZHAKULAM P.O.,ADOOR. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,ADOOR. MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.9671 of 2010 (H) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that he applied for a building permit to the respondent Panchayat. That was rejected by Ext.P3 order. Reason stated in Ext.P3 is that on inspection, the land was found to be a reclaimed land. According to the petitioner, the reclamation of the land in question was on the strength of Ext.P1 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 24/08/1996 exercising his powers under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. It is stated that although Ext.P1 was produced, it was without adverting to Exts.P1, that Ext.P3 order was passed. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.P3, he submitted Ext.P4 explaining the correct position and that even after the receipt of Ext.P4, the matter has not been considered. 2. If as stated by the petitioner, he has produced Ext.P1 and that the land was reclaimed as directed in Ext.P1, that certainly was a matter which ought to have been taken into account when the WP(C) No.9671/2010 -2- application submitted by the petitioner for building permit was taken up for consideration. Ext.P3 order of rejection does not show that the Panchayat had considered Ext.P1. Therefore, I feel the matter needs to be reconsidered. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Panchayat to reconsider the application made by the petitioner for building permit in the light of Ext.P1 order passed by the RDO and the explanation given by the petitioner in Ext.P4. Fresh orders in the matter shall be passed with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg