C.T. Ravikumar, J.@mdashThe captioned writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by the rejection of an application for building permit as per Ext. P4. The petitioner is the owner in possession of a land having an extent of 19 cents comprised in new Survey No. 471/21 of Puthupariyaram II Village in Palakkad Taluk. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected as per Ext. P4 assigning the reason that the property in question has been described as ''nilam'' in the possession certificate. The contention of the petitioner is that the reasoning for rejecting the said application is absolutely unsustainable in the light of the decisions of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617 (DB) ) and
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. A perusal of Ext. P4 would reveal that the sole reason assigned therein for rejecting the application is that the property in question has been described in the possession certificate as ''nilam''. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that such a reason is absolutely untenable in the light of the judicial pronouncements in Praveen''s case (supra) and Shahanaz Shukkoor''s case (supra). The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents would not be in a position to grant permit in the light of the statutory inhibition under Section 14 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short ''the Act''). Essentially, the application of the Act depends upon the question as to whether the land in question is still lying as wet land or even if reclamation was effected whether it was subsequent to the introduction of the Act. The specific contention of the petitioner is that the property in question is not lying as a ''nilam'' and in fact, it was reclaimed long ago. That apart, it is contended that constructions were already effected based on the permits granted by the respondent Panchayat in the neighbouring properties. Evidently, a perusal of Ext. P4 would reveal that the sole reason assigned therein for rejecting the application is its description in the possession certificate as ''nilam''. When once it is found that description of a property in revenue records could not be assigned as a reason for rejection of an application and that the application filed by the petitioner was rejected solely relying on its description in the possession certificate without conducting an inspection of the property, it is liable to be interfered with in the light of the decisions referred supra. In the said circumstances, Ext. P4 order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner is set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to conduct an inspection into the property in question to ascertain its real nature and also to ascertain the question whether constructions were effected in the nearby properties. After conducting such an inspection appropriate orders shall be passed on the application submitted by the petitioner which culminated in Ext. P4 afresh and in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
