The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of the 2nd respondent, rejecting his application for building permit on the sole ground that the property in question is shown as 'Nanja' in the land revenue records. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the said observation by the 1st respondent cannot form the basis of an order rejecting an application for building permit, since the said order itself contains an averment that the land in question was converted more than 20 years ago.
2. I have heard Sri.P.Ravindranath, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Municipality.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that while considering the application for building permit, the 2nd respondent cannot mechanically reject the application for the sole reason that the description of the land in the land revenue records is shown to be “Nanja” land. In view of the decisions of this Court in Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2012 W.P.(C).No.26220 of 2014 -2-
(3) KLT 333], Mohammed Abdul Basheer v. State of Kerala [2012 (3) KLT 86], Jafarkhan v. Kochumarakkar (2012 (1) KLT 491), Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617), Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009 (3) KLT 899), it is clear that the 2nd respondent will have to consider various other matters and also conduct a physical verification of the land before taking a decision regarding the grant of building permit to the petitioner. Thus, I quash Ext.P1 order of the 2nd respondent and direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass fresh orders in the matter taking into account the decisions referred to above and also after conducting a physical verification of the property, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
mns A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE W.P.(C).No.26220 of 2014 -3-