Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent whereby his application [Ext.P4] for building permit is seen rejected on the ground that the land on which the building is proposed to be constructed is shown as 'Nilam' in the revenue records. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that Ext.P5 order is patently illegal in view of the plethora of the judgments of this Court on the point. He would rely in particular on the decisions of this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayath - [2009 (3) KLT 899], Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner - [2010 (2) KLT 617 (DB)], Jaferkhan v. K.A.Kochumarakkar and Others - [2012 (1) KLT 491 (DB)], Mohammed Abdul Basheer v. State of Kerala [2012 (3) KLT 86], Ashraf v. Eramala Grama Panchayath - [2012 (3) KLT 323], Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2012 (3) KLT 333] and Adani Infrastructure v. State of Kerala - [2014 (1) KLT 794].
W.P.(C).NO.28722/2014 2
2. I have heard Sri.K.Shibili Naha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that Ext.P5 order, on the face of it, cannot be sustained. The only reason cited for rejecting the application of the petitioner for building permit is that the description of the land in the revenue records is as 'Nilam'. The judgments of this Court have consistently held that applications for building permit cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the land, on which a building is proposed to be constructed, is described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records. The statutory authorities who consider applications for building permit are required to conduct a physical verification to ascertain the nature of the land and not go merely by the entry in the revenue records. Accordingly, while quashing Ext.P5, I direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders on Ext.P4 application for building permit presented by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent shall take a decision in the matter after conducting a physical verification and also W.P.(C).NO.28722/2014 3 considering other relevant facts and affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard prior to taking the decision aforesaid. The decision shall be taken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed as above.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp