Building permit applications must be evaluated based on the present condition of the property, not solely historical descriptions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Exhibit P6 proceedings of the 2nd respondent by which an application for numbering a building put up by him has been rejected. There are two reasons stated in Exhibit P6. The first reason is that as per a Circular issued by the Local Self Government Department dated 23.9.2008, permission to make constructions on lands that are paddy fields as well as lands that are not paddy fields could be issued only to persons, who have no house of their own and only for the purpose of constructing a house. It has therefore been held that since the petitioner's property has been described as paddy field in his title deed, no permission to make any construction therein could be granted to him, considering that he already has a house of his own. According to the counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner's property has been described as a paddy field in the title deed, the same is no longer a paddy field and therefore, the reasons stated in Exhibit P6 are unsustainable.

WPC.No.24279/13 -2-

It is a fully developed dry land. The petitioner places reliance on Exhibits P2 to P5 photographs in support of his contentions. The petitioner has already constructed a shed in a portion of the property. What has been put up by him is clearly visible in Exhibit P4 photograph, which is only a temporary shed or is only a lean to made of tin sheets attached to the permanent structure. The said shed being a temporary structure, it is contended that the reasons stated in Exhibit P6 are not applicable to the same. The shed has been constructed, according to the petitioner for the purpose of manufacturing chips for sale.

2. Advocate Sri P.Santhosh (Poduval) appears for the respondents. According to the counsel, since the circular applies not merely to paddy lands but also to lands that are not paddy lands, the petitioner's structure could not be numbered as long as the circular is in force. The petitioner admittedly being the owner of a house, is not entitled to get permission for another construction on land that has been described as paddy field.

3. Heard.

4. It is no doubt true that the petitioner's property has been described as paddy field in the records. However, it has been WPC.No.24279/13 -3-

held by this Court that such description of a land in the records are not sufficient to deny building permit to the land owner. Applications for building permits are to be considered on the basis of the real nature of the property at present. It has also been held by this Court in Exhibit P7 judgment that lands converted prior to the coming into force of Act 28 of 2008 are not governed by the provisions thereof. The provisions of the said Act applies only to lands that were paddy fields on the date of coming into force of the said enactment. Exhibit P6 does not show that any attempt to ascertain the present condition of the land was made by the 2nd respondent. The fact remains that the petitioner has already been granted building permit to make constructions in his property. On the strength of such building permit, he has already constructed his house and other structures. Therefore, to refuse to number his present construction on the ground that the same is not permissible in view of the circular that has been relied upon cannot be sustained. Even assuming that the construction is unauthorised, the petitioner has the option to seek regularisation thereof.

For the above reasons, Exhibit P6 is set aside. The 2nd WPC.No.24279/13 -4-

respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner afresh after conducting an inspection of the property and ascertaining the present condition thereof. Orders as indicated above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.