The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P8 order, by which the second respondent has rejected an application for building permit submitted by the petitioner. The application has been rejected stating that, the petitioner's property is classified as a paddy field. According to the petitioner, the said reason is unsustainable, in view of the dictum laid down by this Court in a series of decisions holding that, it is not the description of the land in the Revenue Records that has to determine whether a land is a paddy field or not. The authority has to conduct an inspection of the land and verify its present physical condition before issuing such orders, it is contended. 2. Heard. In the present case, Ext.P8 shows that it was passed earlier on 1.2.2014. There is absolutely no explanation as to why the order was not challenged at the appropriate time. This writ petition is filed only on 7.10.2014. I am not satisfied that the W.P.(C).No.25961 of 2014 2 belated challenge against Ext.P8 needs to be entertained at this juncture.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may at least be given an opportunity of submitting a fresh application for building permit. The request is accepted. Therefore, while dismissing this writ petition, it is made clear that, the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit a fresh application for the building permit, if so advised.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.