BABU Vs. OKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayat.

(2.) PETITIONER filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5, whereby his application for regularisation of a building, which is already constructed in his property in R.S.No.439/22 of Chelamattam Village was rejected by the Panchayat informing that his request can be considered only after the data bank under Act 28 of 2008 is finalised.

(3.) GOING by Ext.P5 order challenged, the only reason stated is that the request will have to await finalisation of the proceedings under Act 28 of 2008. Ext.P1 is a certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which shows that on inspection the land in question has been found to be a garden land. It also states that there are improvements, the age of which varies from 25 years onwards. Ext.P2 is a photograph of the land which also fully substantiates the conclusion of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Although, it is true that according to the counsel for the respondent, going by the BTR, the land in question is a paddy land, in several cases of of this nature, this court has held that the request made for building permit shall not be decided merely going by the entries in documents such as possession certificate and that the authorities should conduct physical verification and ascertain the true nature of the land.