SIMON K.FRANCIS Vs. THRISSUR CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second round of litigation for the petitioners on the subject of rejection of their application for building permit. The petitioners are having certain property comprised in Survey No.478/4 of Chembukkavu Village. They submitted an application for constructing a residential building with a plinth area of 553.18 sq. metre. Earlier, that application was rejected on the ground that the land is included in an area classified as paddy zone under the Master Plan. The petitioners approached this Court challenging the said order of rejection by filing W.P.(C)No.21127 of 2013. That writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment with a direction to the second respondent herein to conduct an inspection into the land in question to verify whether it continues to be a paddy field and pass appropriate orders thereon. It is submitted by both sides that the power of the Secretary is delegated to the second respondent. Pursuant to Ext.P2, the application submitted by the petitioners was considered and Ext.P3 order dated 24.12.2013 was passed. As per the same, the second respondent rejected the application submitted by the petitioners holding that the land in question appears to be paddy field. It is in the said circumstances that challenging Ext.P3 and seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to grant building permit as sought for, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it is stated that the land in question is water logged and therefore, permission could not be granted to effect construction. However, it is not stated therein as to whether the land in question is a wet land falling within the purview of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. So also, there is no case for the respondents that the land in question is included in Data Bank. Taking note of the rival contentions this Court directed the concerned Agricultural Officer to conduct an inspection into the property to ascertain the nature of the land. The land in question falls within the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Officer, Vilvattom. The learned Government Pleader furnished a copy of the instructions passed on by the Agricultural Officer dated 18.8.2014, after conducting an inspection into the land in question. It is stated therein that the land in question is having an extent of 0.1067 hectares comprised in Survey No. 478/4 of Peringavu Village and the land is not suitable for paddy cultivation. True that, there is an incongruity with respect to the name of the Village. It appears that it is only a mistake crept in the report. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it can only be a mistake as the land in question lies in Survey No.478/4 of Chembukkavu Village and in fact, the memo dated 4.8.2014 filed by the additional 5th respondent would reveal that the land in question actually lies in Survey No.478/4 of Chembukkavu Village and that it lies within the jurisdiction of Agricultural Officer, Vilvattom. It is specifically stated in the report filed along with a memo dated 4.8.2014 that the land in question lies within the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Officer, Vilvattom. Taking into account the report furnished before me dated 18.8.2014 I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of. Evidently, the impugned Ext.P3 order was passed rejecting the application based on the reason that the land appears to be a paddy field. True that, there is a mistake crept in the name of the village in the report dated 18.8.2014. However, it is evident that the Agricultural Officer, Vilvattom conducted an inspection into the property comprised in Survey No.478/4 belonging to the petitioners and reported that the land is not suitable for paddy cultivation. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Vilvattom to submit a proper report to the second respondent showing correctly the name of the village in which the property inspected by him lies so as to enable the second respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioners. If the report is to the effect that the land in question is not suitable for paddy cultivation the second respondent shall consider the application submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. To enable the Agricultural Officer, Vilvattom to submit such a report before the second respondent the petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before the said officer. Upon its receipt a proper report in tune with the instructions passed on to the Government Pleader dated 18.8.2014 shall be furnished to the second respondent after correctly noting the name of the village. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of 10 days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Upon receipt of such a report the second respondent shall consider the application as mentioned above expeditiously, at any rate, within a further period of six weeks.