PREMADASAN Vs. MOKERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by Ext.P3, an order passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting an application made by the petitioner for a building permit. The reason mentioned in Ext.P3 is that as per the documents produced, the land in question is a reclaimed land and therefore the request made by the petitioner is impermissible in view of circular dated 31/7/08. Counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P2 prior deed and Ext.P1, his title deed. Ext.P2 is of 1998 and Ext.P1 is of 2010. Both these documents show that the land is a garden land and this conclusion is fully supported by Ext.P5 photograph produced by the petitioner. In other words, although the land may have been paddy land once upon a time, for several years the land in question is a reclaimed land. In such circumstances, the application made by the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground that the land has been described as a reclaimed land in the title deeds.