The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P6 proceedings of the second respondent rejecting her application for permission to construct a commercial building in her property. Her application has been rejected for the reason that the property is described as a paddy field in the Possession Certificate produced by the petitioner. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the ground on which Ext.P3 has been issued is unsustainable. Though the property has been described as paddy field in her Possession Certificate, at present the same is remaining as a house plot or filled up land. Therefore, she seeks the issue of appropriate orders setting aside Ext.P6.
3. Advocate Mathew John appears for the respondents.
4. Having considered the rival contentions of the contesting parties, it has to be held that Ext.P6 is unsustainable.
WPC 3352/2014 2 It has been held by this Court that it is not the description of a land in the records that is decisive, but the present state of the land. A perusal of Ext.P6 does not show that the authority has taken any steps to verify the present condition of the land. For the above reasons, Ext.P6 is set aside.
This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner afresh, after conducting an inspection of the petitioner's land in order to verify whether the land continues to be a paddy field as described in the Possession Certificate of the petitioner and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders on the application in accordance with law. Appropriate orders as indicated above shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
jj /True copy/ Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge WPC 3352/2014 3