The petitioner is the owner in possession of 53.75 cents of land comprised in survey No. 633/2 of Kandanassery Village. He submitted an application for grant of permit for constructing a residential building thereon. That application was considered and Ext.P1 building permit dated 19.8.2010 was granted to the petitioner. On the strength of Ext.P1 building permit the petitioner commenced and completed the construction. After completing the construction along with the completion certificate the petitioner submitted an application for assignment of the building number. That application was considered by the secretary of the respondent Panchayat and ultimately that application was rejected as Ext.P5. As per Ext.P5 the said application was rejected assigning the reason that the land in question has been described in the possession certificate as 'nilam' (wet land). It is further stated therein that in the case of 'nilam' permit for construction could be issued, in fact, could have issued, only if the total floor area of the proposed construction is less than 300 Sq. Meters. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P5 is liable to be set aside. In the light of a catena of decisions of this Court on the subject an application for building permit could not be rejected solely taking note of the description of the land in revenue records or in the possession certificate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that going by the decisions in Shahanaz Shukoor V. Chelannoor Grama Panchayath reported in 2009 (3) KLT 899 and Smijo K. Sunny V. State of Kerala reported 2012(4) KHC 909 before considering such an application its real nature should have been ascertained and an application for grant of permit for constructing a building could not have been rejected only on relying the description of the property concerned in the revenue records or in the possession certificate. Certain indisputable facts are to be noted for a proper disposal of this case. The fact that the petitioner was granted building permit on application is not under dispute. There is no case for the respondents that the petitioner failed to complete the construction within the validity period of the building permit. In fact, after completing the construction the petitioner submitted an application for assignment of the building number along with Ext.P4 completion certificate. The respondents who have granted the building permit to the petitioner is now raising the contention that the petitioner should not have effected construction in the property concerned owing to the description of the said land in the possession certificate as 'nilam'. In the light of the decision of this Court in Praveen V. Land Revenue Commissioner reported in 2010 (2) KLT 617 the mere description of a land as 'nilam' in the revenue records by itself cannot be a reason for rejection of an application for building permit. Going by the said decision and also the decisions referred (supra) the real nature of the property has to be looked into while considering an application for grant of building permit before rejecting it taking note of the said description in case the nature of the land is disputed. In this case it is evident that after taking into consideration of all aspects building permit was granted to the petitioner. On its strength the petitioner completed the construction and submitted an application for assignment of building number in 2013. When such an application is submitted after completion of the construction on the strength of a building permit granted by the respondents it would be unjustifiable from the part of the respondent to assign such reason as is stated in Ext.P1 for denying assignment of building number. In this case evidently the application submitted by the petitioner was not rejected and in fact, it was granted. After the period of three years that too, after the completion of the construction there is absolutely no justification for the respondents to refuse to assign the building number based on such a reason. In the said circumstances Ext.P5 is set aside. Consequently, it is ordered that the respondents shall restore the application for assignment of building number which was rejected as per Ext.P5 and pass fresh orders in view of the observations made hereinbefore. The respondents shall assign the building number to the construction effected by the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P1 in case the construction is otherwise in order. It shall be done expeditiously and at any rate within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.
dlk