The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 proceedings of the second respondent by which an application for building permit submitted by him has been rejected. According to Ext.P1, the petitioner's property is described as 'Nilam' (wet land) in the documents produced by him. 2. Though the respondent has been served with notice in this case, there is no appearance for the respondent. Therefore, I have heard the counsel for the petitioner.
3. It has been held by this Court in a number of decisions on the point that it is the physical condition of the land at present that has to be ascertained and not the description of the land in the records. This is for the reason that a land described as paddy land in the records, need not necessarily continue to remain as paddy land. The same WPC 27129/2014 2 could have been filled up and utilised for other purposes years back. Therefore, while considering the application for building permit, it was incumbent on the second respondent to have inspected the property, ascertained its present condition and to have issued proceedings on the basis of the present physical condition of the land. The above view is supported by the decisions of this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009(3) KLT 899] and Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2010(2) KLT 617]. The above procedure not having been adopted in the present case, the reason stated in Ext.P1 is unsustainable.
For the above reasons, Ext.P1 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's application for building permit afresh, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj /True copy/ WPC 27129/2014 3