IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15038 of 2011(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SAYYID IBRAHIMUL KHALEELUL BUKHARI THANGAL, S/O.SAYYID AHAMMED IMPICHI KOYA THANGAL, AGED 48 YEARS,MA-ADIN SAKHAFATHUL ISLAMIYYA, MELMURI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM- 676 505. 2. SECRETARY,MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. R1 & R2 BY SRI. E.S.M. KABEER, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2011, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.15053/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15038/2011-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DTD. 02/02/2005. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 05/05/2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). Nos.15038 & 15053 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The point posed for consideration in these Writ Petitions is squarely covered in favour of the petitioners by a decision of this Court in Praveen K. v. Land Revenue Commissioner reported in 2010(2) KLT 617. 2. The petitioner in the former Writ Petition sought permission to reclaim the property in question comprised in Re.Sy.No.418/7, 8 and 10 of Melmuri village having an extent of 67.653 cents for the purpose of constructing a school building. The petitioner in the latter Writ Petition sought permission to reclaim the land for the purpose of constructing a commercial building in the property comprised in Re.Sy.No.469/3B of Melmuri village having an extent of 8.5 cents. Ext.P1 in both these Writ Petitions would reveal that the requisition made by the respective petitioners was granted by the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation order. On the strength of Ext.P1, the respective petitioners have converted the land in question. Thereupon, they submitted applications for building permit before the respondent Municipality. However, the said respective requests were rejected as per Ext.P2 order (in W.P.(C).15038 & 15053/2011 2 both Writ Petitions). It is challenging Ext.P2 order rejecting the respective applications for building permit that these Writ Petitions have been filed. 2. A perusal of Ext.P2 in both these Writ Petitions would reveal that the respective applications for building permit submitted by the petitioners were rejected citing the reason that the properties in question belonging to the petitioners have been described in the town planning scheme as paddy field. The contention of the petitioners is that the fact that on the strength of Ext.P1, the properties in question were subsequently converted as dry land and it is a dry land when the application for building permit was submitted were not taken into consideration by the respondent Municipality while rejecting the application for building permit. It is in the said context that the petitioners rely on the decision of this Court in Praveen's case (supra) contending that Ext.P2 is unsustainable. 3. A statement has been filed by the respondent Municipality in these Writ Petitions. It is admitted thereunder that the application submitted by the respective petitioners for building permit has been rejected on the ground that the properties involved in these Writ Petitions have been described as paddy field under the town planning scheme. In view of the said admitted position, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order viz., Ext.P2 in both these Writ Petitions cannot be hold W.P.(C).15038 & 15053/2011 3 good in the light of the decision of this Court in Praveen's case (supra). Accordingly, Ext.P2 in both these Writ Petitions is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the respondent Municipality to consider the application for building permit submitted by the respective petitioners afresh in the light of the decision in Praveen's case (supra) and also after ascertaining the actual nature of the property involved in these Writ Petitions. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. These Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C).15038 & 15053/2011 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C).15038 & 15053/2011 5