1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayath.

2. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners made an application for a building permit to the first respondent Panchayath. That application was initially rejected by Ext.P4 order stating that the land comprised in survey Nos.56/4 and 7 in Eramala Village mentioned in the application was a Nanja land. Petitioner challenged that order before this Court in W.P.(c) No.26665/2011. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment, clarifying that even if in the records, the property is described as a paddy field, the Secretary should be guided by the ground realities. On that basis, the order was quashed and the matter was ordered to be reconsidered.

3. Accordingly, a committee including the Secretary, Village Officer, Agricultural Officer and the Assistant Engineer, LSGD inspected the site. Thereafter, Ext.P7 order was passed rejecting the application once again. In Ext.P7, it is stated that the land was a paddy field, which was converted two years back and planted with coconut saplings of one year old. It is