The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the rejection of an application submitted by him for the grant of a building permit. According to Adv.T.K.Ajith Kumar, who appears for the Panchayat, the property of the petitioner has been included in the data bank described as paddy filed. 2. Adv.C.S.Manu, who appears for the petitioner disputes the above statement by pointing out that, the property is not a paddy field and that the Panchayat itself has granted Ext.P3 building permit in respect of another portion of the property comprised in the same survey number to his predecessor in title. According to the petitioner, the same is part of the very same property.
3. The counsel for the respondents pointed out that the said assertion is not correct and contends that the petitioner's property has been inspected and found to be paddy field.
W.P.(C).No.13010 of 2014 2
4. Heard. Since the data bank describes the petitioner's property as paddy filed, the presumption is that, the property was paddy filed at the time of coming into force of Act 28 of 2008. If the entry made in the data bank is not correct, it is for the petitioner to move the Local Level Monitoring committee for the purpose of correcting the said entry invoking the provisions of Act 28 of 2008. Either way, this writ petition is not the proper remedy of the petitioner.
The above being position, this writ petition is dismissed, but without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to move the Local Level Monitoring committee for correction of the data bank, if the entry therein is erroneous. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to pursue any other remedy available to him in law.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.