A building permit's legitimacy is affirmed unless proven otherwise through competent survey, impacting occupancy rights.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order issued by the 1^st respondent and for other consequential reliefs.

2. The petitioner is the owner of 4.71 cents (1.92 Ares) of land in Survey No.457/2-8-2 of Aruvappulam Village in Pathanamthitta District, which was gifted by her father on 01.03.2018 by a registered deed. Thereafter mutation was effected and in Ext.P1 Thandaper register the property has been classified as ‘purayidom’. The petitioner, with an intention of constructing a residential building, applied for a building permit, which was granted as per Ext.P2. After completing the building, the petitioner submitted an application for Occupancy Certificate and to number the building, to which Ext.P3 reply was given intimating that the authorities could not ascertain the boundary and the neighbouring property is a ‘paddy land’. The petitioner also received Ext.P4 reply, wherein it is stated that a portion of the land, wherein the building is constructed is a ‘paddy land’ and that they are in the process of verifying as to whether any portion of the land where the building is constructed is ‘paddy land’ and after the boundary has been fixed by the Village Officer, further proceedings would be initiated. Thereafter Ext.P5 communication was received stating that the land having an extent of 0.60 Ares in old Survey No.457/1A2 is a ‘dry land’ and the land having an extent of 1.35 Ares in old Survey No.457/2A1 is a ‘paddy land’ and, therefore, the respondents took a stand that the land of the petitioner is a ‘paddy land’ and refused to issue occupancy certificate. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court.

2. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 25.01.2023, this Court passed an order directing the Secretary of the Panchayath to number the petitioner’s building provisionally, subject to further orders to be passed in the writ petition. To resolve the issue, this Court issued a direction to the Grama Panchayath to file an affidavit after conducting inspection as to whether any portion of the building is constructed in a ‘paddy land’ and further as to whether the extent of construction undertaken by the petitioner as per the permit is in a land classified as ‘purayidom’. In compliance with the said direction, an affidavit has been filed by the 1^st respondent, wherein it is stated that the building permit application, as well as the building permit granted, was for construction of an area of 173.96 sq. metres, whereas the petitioner has constructed a building having an extent of 278.20 sq. metres. It is further stated that out of the said construction, 52.128 sq. metres is constructed in Block No.36, Re-survey No.92/28, in a property having an extent of 0.60 Ares, which is classified as ‘purayidom’, and the remaining portion is constructed in Block No.36, Re-survey No.92/28, in a property having an extent of 1.35 Ares, classified as ‘nilam’ in the revenue records. In support of the said contention, Ext.R1(a) report has been produced along with an affidavit. It is further stated that, after the resurvey was conducted, a portion of the building is situated in a property classified as ‘nilam’, whereas prior to the resurvey, the land on which the said building was constructed was recorded as ‘purayidom’ in old Survey No.457/2-8-2. The said stand of the respondent is supported by Ext.R1(b) report of the Village Officer, Aruvappulam. It is further stated that Ext.R1(3) possession certificate is issued classifying the property as ‘dry land’, without identifying the mixed nature of the land.

3. I have heard the rival contentions of both sides. Admittedly the petitioner has underta