IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 W.P(C).No. 23377 of 2008(G) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.M. JOY, S/O. MATHAI, SNEHASANDRAM & POONELIL, KANJIRAKKAD KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENT: --------------- THE SECRETARY, PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI. V.M. KURIAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 23377 OF 2008 G ==================== Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. The building permit sought for by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent Municipality by Ext.P1. The reason stated is that in the development plan, the land in question is shown as a paddy field. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that land is dry land and invites my attention to the judgment rendered by this court in WP(C) No.3265/08 concerning the very same Municipality and submits that on identical facts, relief has been granted to the petitioner in that writ petition. 3. I have heard the counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the respondent Municipality and also perused the judgment referred to above. 4. On facts, I am satisfied that this case is similar to the one dealt with by this court in the aforesaid case and there is absolutely no reason to take a view different from what is taken in the earlier case. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following WPC 23377/08 :2 : directions. The first respondent will afford an opportunity to the petitioner for producing all documents on which he wishes to rely on to show that the land in question is not Nilam, but is actually dry land. All available documents will be produced by the petitioner within two weeks from today and thereupon the first respondent will consider the petitioner's application for permit, hear the petitioner and take a decision in the matter and communicate the decision to the petitioner. The entire process will be completed within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the first respondent finds on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioner that the property in question is not a paddy field, the application submitted by the petitioner will be decided uninfluenced by the situation that in the basic revenue records the property is shown as paddy field. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp