The petitioner who is the owner in possession of 24 cents of land in Survey No.503 of Kallur Village filed the captioned writ petition on being aggrieved by the rejection of the application for building permit submitted by him. The application was rejected as per Ext.P3 based on circular No.4545/RA1/11/LSGD. dated 22.1.2011. As per the said circular, in the case of properties which are remaining as nilam permission for effecting construction thereon could be issued only with the sanction of the committee constituted for that purpose. The contention of the petitioner is that though the property in question is described as nilam in the possession certificate in Ext.P1 partition deed dated 9.6.2003 the same was described as dry land (purayidam) and in fact, the land in question is dry land and not `nilam'. In the said circumstances, the contention of the petitioner is that the respondents should not have rejected the application merely looking into the description of the said property in the possession certificate and prior to the passing of an order on the application an inspection into the property should have been made. It is the further contention of the WP(C).No.31002/2013 2 petitioner that in the light of the Division Bench decision in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617 (DB)) the mere description of a property as nilam by itself could not have been a reason for rejecting an application for building permit.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents I am of the view that the application filed by the petitioner requires fresh consideration at the hands of the respondents after an inspection into the property to ascertain its real nature. Even though a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents nothing is stated therein as to whether the application was rejected after conducting an inspection into the property. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents could not conduct an inspection as they are not authorised to do so. It is to support the said contention that the respondents relied on Circular No.4545/RA1/11/LSGD. dated 22.1.2011. The question of application of the said circular would arise only if the land in question is remaining as nilam and even if it is not a nilam when the reclamation was effected only after the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land & Wet land Act, 2008. It is not stated anywhere in the counter affidavit that the land in question was reclaimed WP(C).No.31002/2013 3 only after the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land & Wet land Act, 2008. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the respondents have to be compelled to conduct an inspection into the property to know the real nature of the land and then to take a decision. In the said circumstances, to enable a fresh consideration in view of the observations made hereinbefore the impugned Ext.P3 order is set aside. Consequently, there will be direction to the second respondent to conduct an inspection into the property in question to ascertain its real nature. While conducting such inspection the nature of the adjoining land shall also be ascertained. After such inspection and subject to the result of such inspection if it is found that the land in question is a dry land and that it is not remaining as nilam despite its description in the possession certificate appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, on the application submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS