The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order of the 2nd respondent, whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit has been rejected solely on the ground that the property in question is shown as 'Nilam' both in the land revenue records and in the Data Bank. Counsel for the petitioner points out that the assumption by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P6 order is factually incorrect insofar as in the Data bank, the land is excluded from the purview of paddy land or wet land.
2. I have heard Sri.Peethambaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the nature of the orders that I propose to pass, I do not deem it necessary to hear the respondent Panchayath.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that Exhibit P6 cannot be legally sustained and accordingly, I quash Exhibit P6 order and direct the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders on the applications for building permit preferred by the petitioner keeping W.P.(C).No.28618 of 2014 -2-
in mind the settled position of law as laid down in the decisions reported in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2010 (2) KLT 617], Mohammed Abdul Basheer v. State of Kerala [2012 (3) KLT 86], Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2012 (3) KLT 333], Aishabeevi v. Superintendent of Police [2014 (3) KLT 1078] and also after conducting a physical verification to ascertain the nature of the land in question. The 2nd respondent shall pass fresh orders in the matter 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 mns W.P.(C).No.28618 of 2014 -3-