FIROZ BABU, S/O.K. SOOPI, Vs. CHERIYAMUNDAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHERIYAMUNDAM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is stated to be in absolute ownership and possession of 46 cents of land in Sy.No.127/1 of Cheriyamundam village in Tirur Taluk, Malappuram District, had approached the 1st respondent Panchayath with an application for building permit. The said application was rejected by the respondent Panchayath, on the ground that, the District Collector had, on an application preferred by the petitioner's wife for construction of a residential building in an adjoining paddy field, rejected the said application, on the ground that the petitioner's wife had other properties, on which the construction could be effected, and therefore it was not necessary to reclaim the paddy land for the said purpose. It is the stand of the respondent Panchayath that, inasmuch as the petitioner's wife had been denied the permission by the District Collector, through Ext.P5 order, and the said order indicated that residential buildings could not be constructed in any of the lands in the same survey number, as that which covered the property of the petitioner's wife, the respondent Panchayath is not in a position to grant the building permit to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, in his capacity as the Convener of the Local Level Monitoring Committee(LLMC). In the said counter affidavit it is stated that, the petitioner has an extent of 20.25 cents of land in Sy.No.127/1, out of which, 5 cents remain as paddy land and the remaining 15.25 cents was converted almost one year prior to 2008. While the petitioner had approached the LLMC for excluding his land from the Data Bank, the committee conducted a local inspection on 25.04.2015 and after considering the report, the committee was of the view that the necessary entries had already been made in the Data Bank, stating that the petitioner's land was converted almost one year prior to 2008 and nothing further needed to be done in the case of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner, therefore, that since the land on which he proposes to construct the building is one, that is shown as converted land in the land data bank, there can be no objection to his putting up of a residential construction in the said land.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent Panchayath and the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents.

(3.) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, and finding that it is the specific case of the petitioner herein that the land on which he is proposing to construct a residential building is land, that is already shown as converted land in the land data bank prepared for the region, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions;