Petitioner has applied for a building permit, and the building permit sought for by the petitioner has been rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P3. In Ext.P3, it is stated that the property, where the petitioner proposes to construct the building, is a converted paddy field and therefore, the building permit sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 2. Notice was issued to the respondents, and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Panchayath reiterated the stand taken by the Panchayath in Ext.P3 communication. To a specific question put to the learned counsel, he conceded that Ext.P3 decision is taken based on the revenue records.
3. In Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannnur Grama Panchayat [2009 (3) KLT 899], this Court held that an application for building permit cannot be rejected based on revenue records and the statute operates on the basis of facts as W.P.(C) No.25958/2014 2 they exist on ground realities. In the instant case, admittedly, there was no verification of site of the proposed building by the second respondent.
4. In the circumstances, Ext.P3 is quashed and the second respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for building permit afresh, after ascertaining the nature of the property as it stands, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JV JUDGE