The petitioner, the owner of an item of property in ward No.II of the Irinjalakkuda Municipality has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Exhibit P7 proceedings of the second respondent by which an application for building permit has been rejected. The petitioner had sought for the issue of a building permit for the construction of a hospital in his property. The reason stated in Exhibit P7 is that, the petitioner's property has been described as Wet Land in the Possession Certificate produced by her along with the application. It has also been stated that, on inspection of the property it was found that the property was a reclaimed paddy land. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the reason stated in Exhibit P7 is not sustainable. If the land has actually been converted, then, there is no reason why the permit should not be granted. 2. A statement has been filed by the counsel for the respondents. It has been stated categorically in paragraph 1 of the statement that, the petitioner's application was 'rejected because the nature of the property is shown as wet land in the village records and in the 'possession certificate'. It has further been stated on behalf of the respondents that, the property is lying at a level, one metre below the other properties and that it is a property that gets waterlogged during the rainy season. Being a wet land, it is contended that no building permit could be issued to the petitioner for the construction of a hospital building. No permission to fill up the land to raise its level by one metre could be granted, according to the respondents.
3. Heard. As already noticed above, the only reason stated in Exhibit P7 for rejection of the petitioner's application is that his property has been described as paddy field in the Possession Certificate and Revenue Records. It has been further stated in Exhibit P7 that, it was found on a physical inspection of the property that, the same had been converted. However, according to the counsel for the respondents, the property has not been fully converted. But, the above facts are not stated in the impugned order. The statement filed has taken up a position that, the property is a place where stagnant water collects during rainy season. The above aspect also does not find a place in Exhibit P7. In view of the above, it is only appropriate that the second respondent considers the matter afresh. Exhibit P5 photographs show that, the property contains other cultivation. No reference to the cultivation available in the property has been made in Exhibit P7.
If as a matter of fact, the petitioner's property has been reclaimed either partially or fully, the second respondent would have to address the further question as to whether such conversion had taken place before the coming into force of Act 28 of 2008 or after it had come into force. The fate of the petitioner's application would have to depend on such a finding as well. None of the above aspects have been considered in Exhibit P7. Therefore, Exhibit P7 is liable to be set aside.
In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. Exhibit P7 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to conduct a fresh inspection of the petitioner's property to ascertain the physical condition thereof and to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application for building permit, 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 kkj