P.V. THOMAS v. ALAKKODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2014-08-08
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of; directing the second respondent to consider the building-permit application afresh after conducting an inspection to ascertain the land’s real nature, taking into account surrounding lands, and to do so within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.V. THOMAS

Respondents

ALAKKODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH
THE SECRETARY, ALAKKODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALAYATHANI POST, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685584

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Mathew John (K)
• Sri Domson J.Vattakkuzhy

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Georgekutty Mathew

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, P. V. Thomas, owner in possession of 1.01 hectares (1.01 Ares) of land in survey No. 266/8 of Alakkode Village, Idukki District, challenged the rejection of his building-permit application. The denial (Ext.P2) was based on the land being described as Nilam in revenue records. The petitioner contends the decision was made without inspecting the property and solely on its revenue-record description. He relies on the decision in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010(2) KLT 617) to argue that the real nature of the property must be considered and not merely its register description. The court, acknowledging the Praveen decision, notes there is no doubt that an application for a building permit cannot be rejected solely on revenue-record descriptions; the real nature of the property must be ascertained. It directs the second respondent to reconsider the application afresh after conducting an inspection to determine the property’s true nature, while also taking into account the surrounding lands. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, with a six-week time frame from receipt of the judgment for completion of the inspection and reconsideration in accordance with law.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that Ext.P2 rejects the application purely on the description in revenue records, without inspecting the property. He relies on Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010(2) KLT 617) to contend that the real nature of the land must be considered and not merely its revenue-record description.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the building permit could be refused for valid reasons, as reflected in Ext.P2. However, the court ultimately finds that such a rejection cannot rest solely on revenue-record descriptions and must involve an inspection to determine the property’s real nature.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner	2010(2) KLT 617	Positive	The court relies on this decision to hold that a building-permit decision cannot be based solely on revenue-record descriptions and must assess the property’s actual nature.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/17TH SRAVANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 17016 of 2014 (B) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- P.V.THOMAS, PALLATHU HOUSE, ANJIRI POST, THODUPUZHA. BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKKUZHY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ ## 1. THE ALAKKODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH KALAYATHANI POST, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PIN-685584 ## 2. THE SECRETARY, THE ALAKKODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALAYATHANI POST THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685584. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17016 of 2014 (B) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------------- EXT.P1: PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL ----------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== W.P.(C). No.17016 OF 2014 ==========================** Dated this the 8[th ] day of August, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner who is the owner in possession of 1.01 Ares of land comprised in survey No.266/8 of Alakkode Village in Idukki District filed this writ petition on being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for building permit for effecting construction thereon. His application was rejected as per Ext.P2 order assigning the reason that the land in question is described in the revenue records as 'Nilam'. The contention of the petitioner is that the said application was rejected without conducting an inspection of the property concerned but, solely based on its description in the revenue records. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such action is liable to be interfered with in the light of the decision in **Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2010(2) KLT 617].** 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. In the light of the decision in **Praveen'** s case (supra), there cannot be any doubt with W.P.(C).17016/14 2 respect to the position that an application for building permit cannot be rejected solely relying on the description of the concerned property in the revenue records and in fact, the real nature of the property in question has to be taken into account. Since it is evident that the application for building permit was rejected solely relying on the description of the property in the revenue records, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit which culminated in Ext.P2 order afresh 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 after conducting an inspection into the property in question to ascertain its real nature. While conducting such an inspection, the nature of the surrounding lands shall also be taken into consideration. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** W.P.(C).17016/14 3 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** W.P.(C).17016/14 4 **JUDGMENT September, 2010** W.P.(C).17016/14 5 W.P.(C).17016/14 6