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. 18113 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.K.BHASKARAN, S/O.KUNHIKUTTAN, AGED 42 YEARS, PUTHANKUDIYAN HOUSE, MELMURI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT: ---------------- THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM. BY SRI.BABU S.NAIR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO.18114/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) Nos. 18113 & 18114 OF 2008 ======================= Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P4 orders produced in these cases are under challenge. By these orders, applications made by the petitioners for building permits have been rejected stating that as per the master plan, the land in question has been shown as paddy fields and that permit cannot be granted. Petitioners contend that the finding in Ext.P4 that the land in question is a paddy field is incorrect. According to them, by Ext.P2 orders issued by the District Collector on 3/3/2004, they have been granted permission to convert the land and accordingly, the land has been reclaimed way back in 2004 itself on the strength of Ext.P2 orders. It is stated that Ext.P4 having been rendered on an incorrect basis needs to be reviewed. Petitioners are also relying on Ext.P5, a judgment rendered by this court rendered in identical circumstances and directing that an application should be reconsidered. 2. I have heard the standing counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the respondent Municipality also. 3. Having regard to the facts as stated above, I feel that the matter needs reconsideration of the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the WPC 18113 & 18114/08 : 2 : respondent is directed to take note of Ext.P2 orders issued by the District Collector and verify as to whether the said orders are in relation to the same land. 4. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners shall produce copies of Ext.P2 before the 1st respondent Municipality and thereupon the Secretary of the Municipality shall examine whether the land mentioned in Ext.P2 are the same as those mentioned by the petitioners in the applications submitted by them. On such examination, if it is found that that the land is the same and has been reclaimed, the Secretary shall reconsider Ext.P4 and pass suitable orders in the light of Ext.P5 judgment, a copy of which will also be made available by the petitioners. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp