IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20255 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------------- MUZHAPPILANGADAN MANOJ, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 32 YEARS, MANGATTIDAM AMSOM, KIRACHI DESOM, PALEKUNNATH HOUSE, P.O.VENGAD, PIN 670 612. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, MANGATTIDAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O.MANGATTIDAM, THALASSERI TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, MANGATTIDAM VILLAGE, P.O.MANGATTIDAM, THALASSERI TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJKUMAR ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAD FOR R2 SRI.K.N.ABHILASH FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20255/2008 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.1283 OF 2008 OF SRO KUTHUPARAMBA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.1063/1943. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD. 17/05/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 22/03/2008. EXT.P5(A): COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 20/02/2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 31/05/2008 SENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 23/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE PETITION TENDERED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20255/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7. 2. Ext.P7 is an order passed by the Secretary of Second respondent Panchayat, on an application made by the petitioner for a building permit in respect of his land in survey No.64/1 of Mangattidam village. By this order the petitioner has been directed to produce certificate from the Village Officer that the land in question is a garden land and not a paddy field, as it has so indicated in the resettlement register. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though in the resettlement register the nomenclature used as paddy field in Ext.P2, schedule to document No.1063/1943, the property has been described as garden land. It is stated that more than 60 years ago the property 2 has been developed into a garden land and therefore the nomenclature used in the resettlement register is not factually correct. 4. Ext.P7 indicates that the second respondent was fully guided by the entries in the resettlement register and nothing else. In my view, if the land in question is a garden land as contended by the petitioner is no justification for the stand taken in Ext.P2. The situation now prevailing should certainly be relevant while considering the request of the petitioner and that cannot be brushed aside referring to the entries in the settlement register alone. 5. Therefore I direct that the second respondent shall inspect the land in question and if he finds that the land is a developed garden land as claimed by the petitioner, revised orders shall be passed on the application made by him for building permit. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks, from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC vi JUDGE 3