IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 6191 of 2011(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JOJI M.V,S/O.VAREETH, MOYILAN HOUSE,MULANGUE,THOTTIPPAL VILLAGE THRISSUR TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. MR.P.SAMSUDIN MR.M.O.PAULSON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. PARAPPUKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAPPUKKARA P.O.-680310 THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 2. THE SECRETARY, PARAPPUKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PARAPPUKKARA P.O.-680310 THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 ADV. MR.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R1-2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.ABDUL SALAM FOR R-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 6192 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6191 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE. EXT.P2: LETTER ISSUED BY THE STATE DIRECTOR, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION DTD. 18.8.2009. EXT.P3: BUILDING PLAN. EXT.P4: BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.P5: ORDER ISSUED BY R2 DTD. 30.1.2011. EXT.P6: PHOTOS SHOWING LIE AND NATURE OF THE LAND. EXT.P7: LAND IDENTIFICATION DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN SURVEY NO.226/1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ..... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).Nos.6191 & 6192 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The reliefs claimed in both writ petitions are same and therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. The writ petitions are filed seeking to quash Exts.P5 & P4 respectively and for a direction directing the 2nd respondent to number the building and to issue occupancy certificate to the petitioners. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.6191/2011 is the son and the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.6192/2011 is his father. Both petitioners own and possess respective properties mentioned in the writ petitions. Petitioners submitted applications for building permit for setting up small scale industrial units. The 2nd respondent granted permits and approved the plans submitted by the petitioners. The permit was obtained for the construction of two sheds in the respective properties owned by the petitioners. What is constructed is only a work shed on GI pipes support and metal sheet roofing. After completing the construction of the ::2:: W.P.(C).Nos.6191 & 6192 Of 2011 respective sheds, petitioners approached the 2nd respondent for numbering the building. The request of the petitioners was rejected by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P5 in W.P.(C).No.6191/2011 and Ext.P4 in W.P.(C).No.6192/2011 are the orders passed by the Secretary. The reasons stated for the rejection of the application is that the land is shown as “nilam” in the revenue records. 3. Petitioners produced photographs showing the nature of the property. From the photographs produced it is seen that the properties are lying as a dry land with improvements like coconut trees, arecanut trees etc. Ext.P7 in W.P.(C). No.6191/2011 and Ext.P6 in W.P.(C).No.6192/2011 are the copies of the land identification details maintained by the village office. The said records shows that the properties are cultivated with coconut trees and plantains and that the age of the coconut trees is between 15-20 years. 4. In several cases the local authority rejected the applications submitted by the land owners seeking permission to construct buildings in their properties stating that as per the ::3:: W.P.(C).Nos.6191 & 6192 Of 2011 revenue records the nature of the property is shown as “nilam”. This Court had occasions to consider several cases where the property is shown as “nilam” in the revenue records but in reality the property is a dry land. A Division Bench of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617) held that the nature of the property recorded in the village office as paddy land is not a reason for rejecting the application for permit and that the ground reality has to be considered before passing an order on the application for building permit. Similar view was taken by this Court in the decision reported in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayath (2009 (3) KLT 899). This Court set aside the orders passed by the local authorities rejecting the application for building permit. 5. Going by the materials on record there is every reason to believe that the property owned by the petitioners was converted as a dry land several years back. That may be the reason why permit was granted for the construction of buildings. After granting building permit, acting on that permit the petitioners constructed the buildings and for the purpose of ::4:: W.P.(C).Nos.6191 & 6192 Of 2011 occupation of the constructed building when they approached the Secretary of the Panchayath for numbering the building it is not open to the Secretary of the Panchayath to reject the request stating that the property remained as “nilam” as per revenue records. In these circumstances, Exts.P5 in W.P.(C). No.6191/2011 & P4 in W.P.(C).No.6192/2011 cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, Exts.P5 & P5 are quashed. The Secretary of the Panchayath is directed to reconsider the application and pass orders numbering the building and issued occupancy certificate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petitions before the Secretary of the Panchayath for further action. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-