IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16809 of 2008(A)
1. P.N. KRISHNADAS, POLAKKULATH HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY, ARPOOKKARA GRAMA
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.M.V.BOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :23/06/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.16809/2008
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7, a
communication issued by the first respondent, informing
the petitioner that he should produce a sanction order from
the Revenue Divisional Officer for issuing the building
permit applied for by him. The reason stated in Ext.P7 is
that, in view of circular No.24136/R-A1 dated 20th June,
2007, issued by the Local Self Government Department,
such a sanction is necessary.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in
terms of clause (11) of the aforesaid circular a sanction
order of the RDO is necessary only if the construction
proposed to be undertaken needs reclamation of paddy
filed. According to him, the construction is proposed to be
undertaken in a garden land and therefore clause(11) of the
2
circular referred to above is inapplicable.
3. If as stated by the petitioner, there is no
reclamation involved in the construction of his building, this
necessarily is a matter for the first respondent to consider
and take a fresh decision.
v4. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition, directing
that the first respondent shall conduct an inspection of the
site, in respect of which building permit is sought for by the
petitioner, and if he is satisfied that no reclamation is
necessary, he shall reconsider Ext.P5 and and pass revised
orders thereon. It is directed that, the aforesaid process
shall be completed within 4 weeks from the date of
production of a copy of the judgment.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before
the first respondent for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
vi.
3