IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 25690 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- CHATHAMKULAM PROJECTS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD., CHATHAMKULAM CHAMBERS, PALAKKAD, BRANCH OFFICE-10/M127,CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, SOUTH KALAMASSERY,KOCHI-688 033,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR C.B.SUMESH BABU. BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SMT.P.G.BABITHA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KEEZHMADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,KEEZHMADU P.O., ALUVA-683 101. 2. THE SECRETARY,KEEZHMADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KEEZHMADU P.O., ALUVA-683 101. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.25690/2011-I: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1558/2011 OF SRO, ALUVA. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA EAST. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER K.8849/10/K.DIS DATED 23/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, ALUVA. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/8/2011. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.25690 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed for a direction commanding the 2nd respondent to accept Ext.P5 application and to take a decision on the same within the statutory period in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application for building permit dated 19.8.2011 before the 2nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Secretary of the Panchayath is refusing to accept Ext.P5 application for building permit and the fee offered by the petitioner. The petitioner pointed out that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had already obtained Ext.P3 order. In Ext.P3 order, the Revenue Divisional Officer found that the property belonging to the petitioner is lying as a reclaimed land for the last several years and in such circumstances, the provisions of Paddy Land & Wetland Act, 2008 has no application and therefore issued direction to the Secretary of the Panchayath to grant permission to the petitioner to construct building subject to Building Rules. ::2:: W.P.(C).No.25690 Of 2011 Ext.P4 is the copy of the declaration issued by the Additional Tahsildar. The petitioner submits that Ext.P3 would go to show that the RDO has passed the order considering the fact that no agricultural activities are done in the property for a considerable period of time. The petitioner further submits on the strength of Exts.P1 to P4 that he had approached the 2nd respondent seeking permission to construct the building. Respondents are refusing to allow the request of the petitioner stating one reason or other. 3. The limited relief sought for in the writ petition is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to accept Ext.P5 application and pass appropriate orders. In the above said circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to accept, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 application, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-