The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of an application for building permit as per Ext.P1 on the ground that the land in question stands earmarked as paddy zone in the revenue records. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 11cents of property comprised in re-survey No.70/10C of Nellikode Village in Kozhikode Taluk and the application was submitted for constructing a residential building thereon. The specific contention of the petitioner is that before rejecting the said application as per Ext.P1, no inspection of the property in question was conducted for ascertaining its real nature. According to the petitioner, the land in question was reclaimed years back and all the adjoining lands were already reclaimed and residential/commercial buildings were also built thereon. In the said circumstances, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra reported in [2005(11) SCC 222] and decisions of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465] and Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009 (3) KLT 899] it is contended that Ext.P1 is unsustainable and in the circumstances, the application for building permit requires fresh consideration.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. In view of the judicial pronouncements referred above, there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that merely because the land in question lies in an area earmarked as paddy field in the revenue records, that itself cannot be a reason for rejecting the application for building permit especially when the adjoining lands were already reclaimed and constructions were effected thereon.
There cannot be any reason for compelling the petitioner to retain and maintain the land in question as a paddy field in such circumstances and in the contextual situation it is relevant to refer to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jafarkhan v. Kochumarakkar [2012 (1) KLT 491]. Going by the said decision in such circumstances, a paddy land owner could be regarded only as a glorified land owner without any return from his paddy land. If the land in question is not cultivable and the adjoining lands were already reclaimed and buildings were constructed thereon, there will not be any justification to deprive the petitioner the right to enjoy her property effectively and to compel her to retain it as a waste land. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P1 order cannot be sustained and the application submitted by the petitioner requires a fresh consideration in the light of the decisions referred (supra). To enable the second respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit afresh Ext.P6 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the application afresh, in accordance with law and taking into account the decisions referred (supra) and taking into account the nature of the property in question and also the adjoining properties and the developments effected thereon, expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010