The grievance of the petitioners is against Ext.P3 order whereby their application for building permit was rejected. The core contention of the petitioners is that the said application was rejected assigning the reason that the land in question is described in the revenue records as 'Nilam' (wet land) without conducting a proper inspection of the property to ascertain its real nature. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of plethora of decisions of this Court including the one in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2010 (2) KLT 617], such a reason should not have been assigned for rejecting the application for building permit. In other words, even if the property in question has been described in the revenue records as 'Nilam', taking into account the assertion of the petitioners that it is not now remaining as wet land, the respondents should have conducted an inspection into the property concerned to ascertain its real nature. I find substance in the said contention especially in the light of Praveen's case (supra). In the said circumstances, Ext.P3 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the Secretary of the second respondent municipality to conduct an inspection into the property in question to ascertain its real nature. While conducting such an inspection, the fact as to whether constructions were effected in the nearby lands shall also be taken into account. Subject to the outcome of such inspection, the application submitted by the petitioners for building permit shall be reconsidered expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010