IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 7910 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JOSE @ JOSEPH, S/O.ARAKKAL VELAKKANADAN ANTONY, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA. 3. IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R3 SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 7910 OF 2008 N ==================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in this writ petition is for directing the 3rd respondent to receive the petitioner's application for the issue of a permit for construction of a commercial building as per Ext.P4 plan. Petitioner submits that he had submitted Ext.P4 plan for the approval of the 4th respondent and that the same was declined to be accepted or considered for the reason that the land is shown as Nilam in Ext.P3 possession certificate and other revenue records. According to him, land is a fully developed garden land. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the Municipality also enters appearance and submits that Ext.P4 was rejected for the only reason that the land was shown as Nilam in the revenue records. 3. From the pleadings and the arguments raised by the parties, it is obvious that the refusal on the part of the Municipality to consider Ext.P4 was only the description of the land as Nilam in Ext.P3 possession certificate and other relevant records. Therefore, the correctness of this WPC 7910/08 :2 : issue alone arises for consideration. The case of the petitioner is that though the land is described as above in the records, the land has already been reclaimed years ago and that the entries in the revenue records have no relation to the factual position. He has also produced Ext.P2, photographs showing the nature of the land which supports the plea that is now raised. He has also produced as Ext.P5, a building permit granted by the respondent Municipality for constructing a compound wall around the same plot and it is contended that when the said permit was granted, the Municipality was satisfied about the real nature of the land and it was therefore that Ext.P4 building permit was granted. 4. A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent. In the statement it is stated that in the back side of the plot, there are coconut trees, which were planted about 30 years ago. It is also stated that in the middle portion, coconut trees have been planted atleast 20 years ago. Therefore, the factual position as recorded in the statement of the 2nd respondent is also one supporting the petitioner that the land is already reclaimed and is developed into agricultural land. Therefore, from the facts as above, it is evident that the land infact is not a “Nilam” as entered in Ext.P3 or other revenue records. If that be so, I do not think it is proper WPC 7910/08 :3 : for the Municipality to be guided solely by the entry in the revenue records which is totally unrelated to the factual position and decline to consider the request made by the petitioner. I also find that this court had occasion to deal with a similar situation while disposing of WP(C) No.35104/07 by Ext.P6 judgment. In that judgment, the learned Judge directed the Municipality to receive the application and pass orders thereon ignoring the nomenclature of the land in the basic records. 5. Adopting the same reasoning of the learned Single Judge and taking into account the factual position, I direct that the Municipality shall accept Ext.P4 irrespective of the description of the land in Ext.P3 and pass appropriate orders thereon. Petitioner may resubmit Ext.P4 to the Municipality within a week from today, in which case, the Municipality will consider the same and pass orders thereon within 4 weeks thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp