IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10121 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SUNILA GEORGE, PURACKAL MOTORS, POLACHIRACKAL CHAMBERS, K.K.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. NATTAKAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE) MARIYAPALLY POST, KOTTAYAM-686023, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, NATTAKAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH MARIYAPALLY POST, KOTTAYAM-686023. ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS FOR R1 &2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.10121/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF the SALE DEED NO.1440/2005 DT 31.3.2005. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.3664 DT.2.9.2000. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3186 DT 19.11.1976 EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CHART. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DT 23.6.2009 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: PHOTOGRAPH. EXT.P6(a): PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P6(b): PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P6(c): PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P6(d): PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P6(e): PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT 13.1.2010. EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE D 23.6.2009. EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT 15.2.2010 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10121 OF 2010 (M) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T In respect of 20.65 ares of property in Sy.No.338/14 of Block No.18, Nattakam Village of Kottayam District coming under the jurisdiction of the respondents, Ext.P5 building permit was issued to the petitioner permitting construction of a commercial building with ground floor and first floor. 2. Pleadings show that the work is in progress and meanwhile, Ext.P7 application was made for obtaining permit to construct additional floors to the building under construction. Along with the application, petitioner also submitted Ext.P8 possession certificate which indicated the nature of the land as “nilam”. Ext.P7 application was considered and was rejected by the Panchayat by Ext.P9 order. The reason stated is that as per the entires in Ext.P8 possession certificate enclosed to Ext.P7, the land is a nilam and that therefore the construction is impermissible. 3. Referring to documents including the photographs of the site and the neighbouring sites, petitioner submits that the WPC No. 10121/2010 :2 : whole area is completely developed with construction all around. It is stated therefore that the classification of the land as mentioned in Ext.P8 is unrealistic and is of no consequence. It is stated that the incorrectness of the entry in Ext.P8 could have been realised by the respondents, if they had inspected the site before passing Ext.P9 order. 4. The fact that entry in the revenue records or in the possession certificate regarding the nature of the land indicated that the land is a nilam, cannot by itself determine the fate of an application made for the issue of a building permit. As held by this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009(3) KLT 899), the ground realities will have to be verified, and if on such verification, the land is found to be a developed garden land, the application for building permit should be considered in the light of the nature of the land so found. Evidently, verification regarding the nature of the land has not been undertaken by the respondents before issuing Ext.P9. Consequently, the order has been passed contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to above. WPC No. 10121/2010 :3 : 5. For the aforesaid reasons, I quash Ext.P9 and direct the respondents to verify the nature of the land, by inspecting the site in question and reconsider Ext.P7 application made by the petitioner duly adverting to the principles laid down by this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009(3) KLT 899). This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp