The petitioner who is the owner in possession of 18.82 Ares of land comprised in survey Nos.501/3 and 502/1 of Kallenttinkara village filed this writ petition on being aggrieved by the rejection of application submitted by him for building permit for constructing a flour mill in the said property. That application was rejected as per Ext.R2(a) dated 16.01.2014. A perusal of Ext.R2(a) would reveal that permission was declined on the ground that the land in question is described in the possession certificate as Nilam (wet land). It is further stated therein that permission could be granted only for constructing residential buildings in the said land and therefore, permission for constructing flour mill cannot be granted. The petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2010(2) KLT 617] and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jafarkhan v. K.A.Kochumakkar [2012(1) KHC 523 DB]. In Praveen's case (supra), this Court held that mere description of the property as 'Nilam' cannot be a reason for rejecting the application for building permit. In Jafarkhan's case (supra), it was held that if a paddy field or a wet land became unfit cultivation viably such land should be permitted to be converted for suitable use instead of allowing it to be retained as waste land.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition. A perusal of the contentions raised thereunder would reveal that it is nothing but an extended version of the reason assigned in Ext.R2(a). It is evident from Ext.R2(a) that the application for building permit was rejected taking into account the description of the property in the revenue records as 'Nilam' and it is not discernible from Ext.R2(a) as to whether a verification of the land in question was conducted to ascertain its real nature prior to the rejection of the said application. In the light of the decisions referred (supra), there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that before passing orders on an application for building permit it is incumbent on the authority to conduct an inspection into the property in question. The contention of the petitioner is that though the property in question has been described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records, mast trees and mastful trees are available in the property which would suggest that the land was reclaimed long ago. In other words, it is the contention of the petitioner that the contention of the respondents that the land in question lies as wet land is not true to facts. In view of the discussion as above, I am of the view that the respondents are bound to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit after conducting an inspection into the property in question. To enable such consideration at the hands of the respondents, Ext.R2 (a) is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the second respondent to conduct an inspection into the property in question to ascertain its real nature. Subject to the outcome of such inspection bearing in mind the decisions referred (supra), the second respondent shall take appropriate decision on the application 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.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010