The court affirmed that existing permissions under land utilization laws persist irrespective of discrepancies in successors' documentation, ensuring administrative accountability in processing permit applications.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the title holder of the property comprised in Re.Sy.No.87/14 of Kannadi-II Village in Palakkad district. According to the petitioner, predecessor in title of the property has constructed a foundation for the construction of a residential building after securing Ext.P3 order from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad, as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order , 1967. Petitioner applied for a building permit to construct a commercial building and along with the same, the Kerala Land Utilization Order was produced. However, it was not considered by the Secretary of the Kannadi Grama Panchayat - the 7th respondent, stating that in the old Sy.No., property of the petitioner is described as paddy field in the data bank and other documents. Therefore, petitioner was directed to rectify the defects and produce necessary orders before the Secretary in order to enable the Secretary to proceed to consider the building permit application submitted by the petitioner.

2. The case projected by the petitioner is that, since the predecessor in title of the property has secured necessary orders under the Kerala Land Utilization Order , 1967, the Secretary of the Panchayat has no other option than to consider the building permit application submitted by the petitioner. It is also contended that, in spite of earnest efforts made by the petitioner, the Secretary has not cared to consider the application which alone persuaded the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

3. The Panchayat as well as the Secretary have filed a joint counter affidavit before this Court, explaining the circumstances under which the application submitted by the petitioner is pending consideration before the Secretary. Relevant portion of the counter affidavit reads thus:

“The above petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Petitioner's application had been received. It is not correct to say that it is not being processed. As a matter of fact, we had issued Ext.P4 reply dated 25.6.2020 requesting him to produce Permission/Authorization for conversion of the land which is still described as Nilam in the Village records. Therefore without getting any proper authorization from the side of the Revenue Department, Panchayat cannot grant any building permit. It was therefore the petitioner was called upon to produce permission I her name, though Ext.P3 was in the name of her predecessor in interest Vani Devi. The Asst Engineer of LSGD Section, Kannadi Grama Panchayat has submitted a letter dated 22.9.2020 stating that on inspection there is some lack of clarity in the KLU order apparently on the identity of the property and for further action, the file was forwarded by the Asst. Engineer to the Secretary. True copy of the communication dated 22.09.2020 from the Asst. Engineer to the Secretary is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R6(a). Thereupon I forwarded a letter to the Village Officer, Kannadi -II Village dated 21.12.2020 to give a proper Report regarding the plot of the petitioner in Re.Sy.No.87/14 as to whether as per the Gazette dated 06.07.2018 bearing No.26798/Leg B2/2017 the property in the above survey is included in the Data Bank or not. In the KLU Order it is Sy. No.87/8 and not clear whether it is old Sy. Number or new survey number. In the Possession Certificate old survey number is not shown and the Re.Sy.Number is shown as 87/14. In Ext.P1 title deed Re.survey number is 87/14 and old survey number is 45/1A. Hence lot of confusion and lack of clarity as these documents do not tally with each other. In the application the old survey number is 87/8 and new survey number is 87/14. True copy of the application to permit submitted by the petitioner before the Panchayat is herewith produced and marked as Exhibit R6(b). However he has been asked to clarify whether it is included or not in the Data Bank. As per the plan submitted by the petitioner, it has 324.91 sq.mtrs. Under the Ker