The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 proceedings, by which an application for building permit submitted by her has been rejected. According to Ext.P2, the petitioner's property is described as wet land (Nilam) in the Possession Certificate produced by her. It is also stated that the land of the petitioner comes within the Paddy Zone as per the approved Master Plan. 2. It has been held by this Court in a number of decisions on the point that it is the physical condition of the land at present that has to be examined and not the description of the land in the records. This is for the reason that a land described as paddy land in the records, need not necessarily continue to remain as paddy land. It could have been filled up and utilised for other purposes years back. Therefore, while considering an application for building permit, it was incumbent on the respondents to have inspected the property, ascertained its present condition and to have issued proceedings on the basis of the present physical condition of the land. The above view is supported by the decisions of this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009(3) KLT 899] and Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2010(2) KLT 617]. The above procedure not having been adopted in the present case, the reason stated in Ext.P2 is unsustainable.
3. It has been held by the Apex Court in Raju S.Jethmalani and others v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2005(11) SCC 222] that a land owner cannot be prevented from putting his land to any use as deemed fit by him, on the basis of a Master Plan that has not been implemented by prompt follow up land acquisition proceedings. In this case, admittedly, no land acquisition proceedings have been initiated against the property of the petitioner. Therefore, the second reason in Ext.P2 is also unsustainable.
In view of the above, Ext.P2 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's application for building permit afresh, 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.
jj /True copy/ Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge