The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P4 proceedings of the second respondent rejecting their application for permission to construct a building in their property. Thier application has been rejected for the reason that property is described as 'nilam' in the Revenue records. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the ground on which Ext.P4 has been issued is unsustainable. The case of the petitioners is that though the property has been described as paddy field in the Revenue records, at present the same is a house plot or filled up land. The above is evident from Ext.P5 series photographs. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate orders setting aside Ext.P4.
3. Advocate K.Praveen Kumar appears for the respondents.
4. Having considered the rival contentions of the contesting parties, it has to be held that Ext.P4 is unsustainable -:2:-
W.P.(C) No.30404 of 2014 in view of the dictum laid down by this court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009(3) KLT 899] and Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner, [2010(2) KLT 617]. It has been held by this Court that it is not the description of a land in the Revenue records that is decisive, but the present condition of the land. If the land has ceased to be a paddy field on the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, building permit cannot be denied. A perusal of Ext.P4 shows that the above aspect has not been considered. Therefore, Ext.P4 is set aside.
This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioners afresh, after conducting an inspection of the land of the petitioners to verify whether the land continues to be a paddy field as described in the Revenue Records and whether the conversion was made before 2008 and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders on the application in accordance with law. Appropriate orders as indicated above shall be passed, as -:3:-
W.P.(C) No.30404 of 2014 expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc