The captioned writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by the rejection of an application for building permit submitted by the petitioners for effecting construction of a commercial building in 12.4 cents of property comprised in Re-survey No.69/1 of Manjeri Village. Obviously, the said application was rejected as per Ext.P1 assigning the reason that the property is described in the title deed as also in the possession certificate as wet land (nilam). It is further stated therein that the area where the land in question lies is a special residential zone and therefore, in the absence of re-classification it would not be possible to grant permission to the petitioners to effect construction of a commercial building thereon. The petitioners assail the said order on various grounds. It is submitted that in the light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617 (DB)) the mere description of a property in the revenue records or in any other document as nilam by itself cannot be a reason for rejection of an application for building permit. It is held there is that while considering such an application the real nature of the land in question has to be ascertained. A similar view WP(C).No.22310/2012 2 was taken by this Court in another decision in Shahanaz Shukkoor v.
Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009 (3) KLT 899).
2. In the context of the contentions it is only apposite to refer to a decision of this Court in Gopalakirshnan v. State of Kerala (2011 (3) KLT 317). Going by the said decision, if in an area classified as a special residential zone permits for constructions for non-residential purposes are given the classification would lose its characteristics and in such event, applications for non-residential purposes cannot be rejected assigning the reason of classification as special residential zone. Therefore, an inspection of the land, bearing in mind the decisions of this Court in Gopalakirshnan's case (supra) and Praveen's case (supra), shall have to be conducted by the second respondent prior to the re- consideration of the application.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and scanning the impugned Ext.P1 order I am of the view that in the light of the decisions referred supra the respondents are bound to reconsider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioners after conducting an inspection into the property in question. To enable such fresh consideration at the hands of second respondent the impugned WP(C).No.22310/2012 3 Ext.P1 order is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the second respondent to conduct an inspection into the property in question and ascertain its real nature and also the nature of the adjoining lands. Subject to the outcome of the said inspection, bearing in mind the decisions of this Court in Praveen's case (supra), Shahanaz Shukkoor's case (supra) and Gopalakirshnan's case (supra), a fresh decision on the application submitted by the petitioners shall be taken. This shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
TKS Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge