JUDGMENT : ZIYAD RAHMAN, A.A., J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following releifs: a) Issue a declaration that the lands having an extent of 10.25 Ares comprised in Block No.63 and Re-survey No. 97 of Perumbavoor Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk is eligible for issuance of building permit without securing any permission under Section 27A of the 2008 Act, in view of Exhibit P3, P4 and P9. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 5th respondent to grant building permit to the petitioner untrammeled by the categorization of the subject land as nilam in the Basic Tax Register. c) In the alternative, issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to finalise the application under Clause 6 of the KLU Order, the subject matter of Exhibit P5 in view of the declaration of law in Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2019 (3) KLT 838 and other judgments. d) Dispense the petitioner from producing the English translation of the vernacular documents produced in the writ petition. e) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Today when the matter came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought the attention of this Court to Ext.P10 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, in compliance with the interim order passed by this Court on 20.12.2024. The said order was produced along with I.A No 1/2024. As per the said interim order, the application submitted by the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order was directed to be considered. The said interim order was passed taking note that the application was pending since 2015. 3. However, on going through Ext.P10, it is seen that the application was dimissed and the only reason mentioned for rejecting the application is that, the same was submitted by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted the relief on the basis of the same. 4. 3. However, on going through Ext.P10, it is seen that the application was dimissed and the only reason mentioned for rejecting the application is that, the same was submitted by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted the relief on the basis of the same. 4. After considering all relevant aspects, I find that, the said finding is not at all justifiable in view of the fact that being the successor-in-interest of the property, the petitioner would be stepping into the shoes of original owner and thereby he will have every right to prosecute and continue the proceedings initiated on the basis of the application submitted by his predecessor-in-interest under the Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Therefore, the reason mentioned in Ext.P10 order, for rejecting the same is not at all legally sustainable. 5. The observations made by this Court in Ext.P11 judgment passed in WP(c) No. 12655/2020 fortifies the view taken by this Court. In para 5 of Ext.P11, it has been clearly observed by this Court that, once a property holder alienates or transfers his rights and interests over a property to another by execution and registration of a sale deed, as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, all the rights and interests of the purchaser of a property will stand conveyed to the purchaser.Therefore it was observed therein that the successor in interest alone will have the right to pursue the application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. 6. Thus it is evident that, Ext.P10 was passed on a reason which is not sustainable. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner and to pass fresh orders on the application submitted by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner in the light of the observations made in Ext P10 on the merits of the application. A decision shall be taken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment, dehors the reason mentioned in Ext.P10 order to reject the application, i.e, the application was submitted by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner.