The petitioner, the owner of an item of property within the limits of Okkal Grama Panchayat is before this Court for the third time seeking a direction to consider an application for building permit submitted by her. In the Revenue Records, the land is described as a paddy field, though the entire area is at present remaining as a fully developed dry land or house plots. Ext.P4, the data bank, published by the Local Monitoring Committee shows the particular property as garden land. By Ext.P5, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha has granted permission for utilizing the property for non-agricultural purposes. It is the case of the petitioner that the land is lying dry. 2. An earlier application for building permit submitted by the petitioner for construction of a residential building was rejected by Ext.P6, stating that the land was described as paddy land and that, the petitioner's husband owned another building.
The petitioner had challenged the said order in W.P.(C) No.12701 of 2013. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment directing the respondent to ascertain the present condition of the land and to pass appropriate orders on the application. Accordingly, the land was inspected and a permit was granted, which is Ext.P9. The permit was granted after an enquiry was conducted by the respondent which culminated in Ext.P8. Later, the petitioner wanted to install a weigh bridge in a portion of the same property. For the said purpose Ext.P10 application was submitted. Ext.P10 was not considered, again taking the stand that the property was a paddy filed. The petitioner then approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.29003 of 2013. By Ext.P11, this Court directed the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, taking into account the data bank as well as the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. However, the petitioner was informed that in the absence of sufficient vacant space around the proposed installation, a revised plan had to be submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon abandoned the idea of installing the weigh bridge and submitted Ext.P13 accompanied by Ext.P14 revised plan seeking permission for the construction of a commercial building. The petitioner alleges that, the present request is not being considered by the respondent, taking the stand that by Ext.P11 this Court has directed consideration of an application for installing a weigh bridge. The petitioner therefore seeks appropriate directions for the consideration of Exts.P13 and P14.
3. Adv.Philip J.Vettickattu appears for the respondent. The counsel assures that the application, Ext.P13, was submitted only on 29.9.2013 and that the same would be considered without delay.
In view of the above submission, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent to consider Exts.P13 and P14 in accordance with law, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, 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. The respondent shall take into account, the fact that, a building permit has already been issued in respect of the same property, that, the same was permitted to be converted as per Ext.P15 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the further fact that the land has not been included in the data bank.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.