The petitioner had submitted Exhibit P1 application on 03.10.2013 for the issue of a building permit to the Panchayat. Since no orders were passed thereon, within the statutory time limit, the petitioner proceeded with the construction and has completed the same. Thereafter, she submitted an application for numbering the building. Thereupon, she has been issued with Exhibit P2 proceedings dated 14.10.2014 informing her that since her land was described as paddy land in the Revenue Records, her application for building permit could not be entertained. 2. The petitioner places reliance on Exhibit P3 description in the Data Bank which says that her land is 'garden land'. It is also contended that, since the Panchayat did not pass any orders on her application, she had become entitled to the benefit of a deemed permit, on the strength W.P.(C) No.30123 of 2014-M -:2:-
of which, she has now completed the construction. What remains is only to number the building.
3. Despite service of notice by special messenger, the respondent has not entered appearance. Obviously the respondent has no explanation to offer. Therefore, I have heard the petitioner.
4. It is to be noticed that, Exhibit P8 order has been passed on the petitioner's application that was submitted as far back as on 03.10.2014, after the lapse of one year. The petitioner has in the meantime proceeded with her construction and has completed the same. As per the dicta laid down by this Court in the various decisions on the point, as in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009(3) KLT 899] and Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner, [2010(2) KLT 617], it cannot be disputed that, the petitioner's application was not liable to be rejected merely relying on the description of the land in the Revenue Records. Therefore, Exhibit P2 cannot be sustained. Exhibit P2 has been passed one year after the W.P.(C) No.30123 of 2014-M -:3:-
submission of Exhibit P1 application. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner's land is 'garden land' even as per the Data Bank prepared under Act 28 of 2008. For the said reason also, Exhibit P2 is liable to be set aside.
5. Since no orders were passed on the petitioner's application, the petitioner has carried on her construction and completed the same. Therefore, what remains is only to number the building for which an application has been submitted.
For the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Exhibit P2 is quashed. The respondent is directed to conduct an inspection of the petitioner's construction to find out whether the same is in conformity with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules and if the same is in conformity with the Rules, to number the same.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj