Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9 communication issued by the second respondent. By Ext.P9, the second respondent rejected the applications submitted by the petitioner for renewal of Exts.P5 and P6 building permits. 2. Exts.P5 and P6 building permits are seen issued on 16.3.2011 and 30.03.2011 respectively. The reason stated in Ext.P9 to reject the requests of the petitioner for renewal of the said building permits is that the applications submitted by the petitioner indicate that the same are issued in respect of paddy fields and that as per Ext.P10 circular issued by the Government, the petitioner is not entitled to get the building permits renewed.
3. Ext.P9 is seen issued based on the documents submitted by the petitioner and not based on the actual lie of the property. In Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chellur Grama Panchayat (2009(3) KLT 899), in the context of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, this Court held that the statute operates on the basis of the facts as they exist on ground realities and not on any quality or type of land, depending on its description in title W.P.(C).No. 18302 of 2014 2 document.
4. In Ext.P9, the second respondent has no case that Exts.P5 and P6 building permits were issued pursuant to the permission granted by the authorities concerned under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. Ext.P10 circular, in the circumstances, has no application to the facts of this case.
5. In the result, Ext.P9 communication of the second respondent is quashed and the second respondent is directed to re-consider the application submitted by the petitioner afresh, after ascertaining the nature of the land as it lies, 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.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE //true copy// smv