IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940 WP(C).No. 37244 of 2017 PETITIONER/S:

1 ROBIN LOOKOSE AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. P.A. LOOKOSE, PALACKIL HOUSE, KOZHIMALA P.O., IDUKKI - 685 511.

2 SOUMYA ANN VARGHESE AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. ROBIN LOOKOSE, -DO-

BY ADVS.

SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SMT.NIDHI RAVINDRAN SMT.RESHMA ABDUL RASHEED SRI.D.THILAKAN SRI.M.YOHANNAN SRI.P.R.VIBHU RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

2 THE SECRETARY PARATHODU PANCHAYATH, PARATHODE P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 512.

BY ADVS.

SRI.BINNY THOMAS SRI.TITUS MANI SMT.RAJI.T.BHASKAR,GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

07.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Petitioners are husband and wife who were purchased an extent of 8.40 ares of property as per Ext.P1 sale deed. They applied for building permit before the 2^nd respondent along with required documents. Since the said property was described as 'Thottam' in the Ext.P3 possession certificate, the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P4 letter requiring the petitioners to produce a certificate from the revenue authority as to whether permit can be issued for construction in the said property. As per Ext.P5 letter of the 1^st respondent addressed to the Panchayath Deputy Director, Kottayam is appended along with Ext.P4. Thereupon petitioners have submitted Ext.P6 application before the 1^st respondent seeking change of the tenure entered in the revenue records and for passing appropriate orders to enable the petitioners to secure building permit from the Panchayath. This is pending consideration. The sole relief sought for is early consideration of Ext.P6. In my considered view Ext.P5 is a general order passed by the District Collector dated 08.06.2017, directing the Panchayath to consider such applications after ascertaining the details with respect to purpose for which they are exempted under the Land Reforms Act.

2. In that view of the matter and hearing respective counsel across the bar, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to finalise the proceedings pertaining to Ext.P6 at the earliest, and at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

3. Needless to say if the petitioners are able to secure necessary enabling orders in accordance with the directions contained above, the building permit application submitted by the petitioner before the Secretary of the Panchayath shall be considered in accordance with law, also taking into account, any such order produced as directed above.

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 505 OF SRO, KOOVAPPALLY ON 24.05.2016.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED

04.08.2017 ISSUED FROM THE EDAKKUNNAM VILLAGE OFFICE.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE EDAKKUNNAM VILLAGE, DATED 05.08.2017.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 14.09.2017.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PANCHAYATH DEPTY DIRECTOR, KOTTAYAM DATED

08.06.2017.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE

1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01.11.2017.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITNIL //True copy//

PA to Judge