IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13690 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.ABDU RAHIMANKUTTY, NECHIKKATU HOUSE, PANAKKAD,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MUJEEB, S/O.YOUSAF, ANNENGATTU HOUSE, OTHUKKUNGAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SUBAIDA, D/O.KUNHIMUTTY, THEKKIL HOUSE, OTHUKKUNGAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT: --------------- THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM. BY SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SC, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.13690/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE EXEMPTION ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIOENRS BY THE R.D.O.PERINTHALMANNA DT.23.1.1985. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE EXEMPTION ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BY THE R.D.O. PRINTHALMANNA DT.25.3.2004. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE EXEMPTION ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIOENRS BY THE R.D.O. PERINTHALMANNA AS NO.K.DIS.2351/04/M DT.25.3.2004. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT REFUSING TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMIT, ISSUED TO THE PETITIOENR DT.3.1.2004. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 13690 OF 2008 D ==================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard the Standing Counsel for the 1st Respondent Municipality. Petitioners being the owners of 47 cents of land situated in R.S. No.321/16 of Panakkad Village, applied for building permit and that was turned down by Ext.P4 order of the 1st respondent. The reason stated in Ext.P4 is that in the Kottappady scheme, the land in question is classified as a paddy field and therefore their request cannot be granted. Petitioners refer to Exts. P1 to P3 and contend that by these orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, they have been permitted to convert the land in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. On this basis, it is contended that the land has been reclaimed and the statement in Ext.P4 that the land continues to be a paddy field in incorrect. 2. Now that the petitioners have a case that the land in question has been reclaimed into a garden land on the strength of Exts. P1 to P3, this certainly is a matter for the 1st respondent to consider. 3. Therefore, I direct the petitioners to produce Exts. P1 to P3 before the 1st respondent and on such production, the 1st respondent will examine as to whether Exts. P1 to P3 are in relation to the land in respect WPC No.13690/08-D : 2 : of which the petitioners have submitted their application. If it is found that the land is the same and that it has been reclaimed as asserted by the petitioners, necessarily ignoring the classification in the scheme mentioned in Ext.P4, the 1st respondent shall consider the matter and pass orders thereon. On production of Exts. P1 to P3, within three weeks thereafter, orders as above will be passed by the 1st respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp