The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P3 proceedings of the respondent rejecting his application for permission to construct a residential building in his property. His application has been rejected for the reason that the property is described as 'nilam' in the Revenue records. As per G.O.(M.S.)No.210/09/LSGD dated 11.11.2009, permission to construct residential buildings having less than 200 m² area alone could be granted. The proposed plan submitted by the petitioner is having an area of more than 200 m².
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the ground on which Ext.P3 has been issued is unsustainable. The case of the petitioner is that though the property has been described as paddy field in the Revenue records, at present the same is a house plot or filled up land. The above is evident from Ext.P4 photographs. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate orders setting aside Ext.P3.
3. Advocate Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon appears for the respondent.
4. Having considered the rival contentions of the contesting parties, it has to be held that Ext.P3 is unsustainable in view of the dictum laid down by this court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009(3) KLT 899] and Praveen v. Land W.P.(C) No.32582 of 2014 2
Revenue Commissioner, [2010(2) KLT 617]. It has been held by this Court that it is not the description of a land in the Revenue records that is decisive, but the present condition of the land. If the land had ceased to be a paddy field on the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, building permit cannot be denied. A perusal of Ext.P3 shows that the above aspect has not been considered. Therefore, Ext.P3 is set aside.
This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner afresh, after conducting an inspection of the land of the petitioner to verify whether the land continues to be a paddy field as described in the Revenue Records and whether the conversion was made before 2008 and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders on the application in accordance with law. Appropriate orders as indicated above shall be passed, 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.
AV