IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 11220 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.MUHAMMED, S/O. MOIDEEN HAJI, ZACARIYA MANZIL, PERAVOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- PERAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PERAVOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 512. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL SRI.T.P.SAEED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.11220/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.24685 DATED 30/9/10. P1(A) COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 4/11/10. P2 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE LAND TRIBUNALDATED 8/3/1976. P2(A) COPY OF THE PRE DOCUMENT OF THE PROPERTY DATED 11/3/1965. P3 COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DATED 3/11/10. P4 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR DATED 22/1/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 11220 OF 2011 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 order and for other consequential reliefs. Petitioner is the owner of 10 cents of land in Sy.No.32/2 of Manathana Village, Thalassery Taluk. He purchased the property as per sale deed dated 30/9/2010. Ext.P1 is the copy of the sale deed and Ext.P1(a) is the copy of the receipt for payment of property tax. According to the petitioner, the property is garden land that there are several coconut trees and arecanut trees more than 60 years of age in the property and that in the sale deed the property is described as “thottam”. The petitioner submits that his property cannot be considered as paddy land or wet land and that the prior owner obtained the purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal, Manathana on 8/3/1976. Ext.P2 is the copy of the purchase certificate. In Ext.P2 also the property is described as “thottam”. The petitioner also submits that several houses are -2- W.P.(C).No.11220/2011 constructed around the petitioner's property and those constructions are made in the lands similar to that of the petitioner. 2. This Court in the decision reported in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009 (3) KLT 899) considered similar question and held that the mere description of an item of property as 'Nilam' (paddy field) or wet land in revenue records, is not conclusive. This Court also held that the authorities shall consider the ground realties and shall not depend on the description of the property in the revenue records or title documents. Similar question was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617). 3. In the aforesaid context, this Court is of the view that Ext.P3 requires re-consideration. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the respondent to consider and dispose of the application for building permit afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties, -3- W.P.(C).No.11220/2011 if any, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.