A court may dismiss an appeal if it finds no illegality in the lower court's order and if issues are moot.

JUDGMENT :

Amit Rawal, J.

Present intra court appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench dated 02.03.2017, whereby the following prayers sought in the writ petition filed on behalf of 1^st respondent/writ petitioner, has been accepted;

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of Ext.P5 and quash the same.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus to declare that petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Ext.P6. Circular and therefore entitled for a valid Building Permit in the light of Ext.Pl order issued under Kerala Land Utilisation Order.

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to re-consider Exts.P3 and P4 applications in the light of Ext.Pl order issued under Kerala Land Utilisation Order as well as Ex.P6 circular.”

2. The aforementioned writ petition was filed by the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner on the ground that he is the absolute owner of 78.19 Ares of property comprised in Sy.Nos.442/16-2- 2, 442/15-2-2, 442/15-2-3, 442/16-2-1, 442/15-2-1, 442/16-3, 442/15-3- 1 and 442/18-1 of Kizhakkambalam Village, Ernakulam District, covered by three sale deeds, bearing No.1156/2014 dated 06.03.2015, 7723/2014 dated 18.12.2014 and 7720/2014 dated 18.12.2014 of Kolenchery Sub Registrar Office.

3. The authorities, i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Muvattupuzha was approached under the erstwhile Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU Order) of 1967, for permitting the change of the user of the land from ‘Nilam’ to ‘other than the agricultural purposes’. On inspection by the RDO, vide Ext.P1 order dated 02.05.2016, permission was granted to use the said property for the purposes other than agricultural operations. It is pertinent to mention here that the order has become final and has never been challenged. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the property is lying as an absolute dry land and has been converted over more than 10 years of ago, lying above the PWD road, but the Basic Tax Register (BTR) was still showing the character of the land as paddy land (Nilam), despite the fact that there is already a conversion order.

4. The 1^st respondent/writ petitioner had put up a temporary shed with tin sheet roof for the purpose of distributing rice, vegetables and home appliance etc., to the local people on subsidized rates under the aegis of a charitable organization called 'twenty- twenty' and submitted Ext.P3 application dated 5.11.2016 to the Secretary of the Panchayat for granting permission to construct a shed in steel frames with tress work roof. Along with Ext.P3 application, also filed an application for building permit with required plan and certification and all other documents, as evidenced from Ext.P4.

5. The Secretary, Grama Panchayat issued Ext.P5 communication dated 9.11.2015 rejecting the permission on the ground that the land in question is a converted land. The aforementioned rejection was challenged by taking various ground and also by taking the aid of Ext.P6 circular dated 19.04.2016, which was issued for the purpose of giving clarification with regard to various judgments and Clause 3 of the said circular mandates that before granting building permit in those properties which are described as paddy land in revenue records/basic tax register and not so recorded in the Draft Data Bank/Data Bank, it shall be ensured that the permission by the District Collector under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order or regularisation order under Section 3A of the Kerala Protection of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2015, is already granted.

6. A report of the 3^rd additional respondent therein, dated 15.12.2016, was placed on record before the learned Single Bench. Taking note of the aforementioned report, learned Sin