FATHIMA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioner, she had taken all necessary steps for developing 46 cents of wet land belonging to her in Edakochi Village after complying with required legal formalities. Mr. Joseph Franklin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was no cultivation for the past 25 years in the said land and when the application had been filed with Revenue Authorities, it had been directed that it be routed through the local authorities. The counsel refers to the procedure to be followed under the Kerala Municipality (Levy and Collection of Land Conversion Cess) Rules, 2003, published by the Government as SRO No. 189/2003 in respect of land situated in Municipalities, Municipal Corporations and Town Panchayaths. This is a levy authorised by Section 230(3) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994. The procedure for collection of cess is gatherable from Rule 4 of the said Rules which could be extracted herein below:

(2.) A land holder is defined as a person who is the owner or holder of any paddy field, marshy place, pond or watershed. It appears that the necessary permit had been obtained by the petitioner after complying with the norms prescribed as above, though a copy of the order of the Collector is not produced. The counsel states that levy had been paid and also the reports which were required from authorised officer were obtained before permitting such conversion. The present grievance of the petitioner is that when steps were taken for development, objections had forthcome from respondents 4 to 6 claiming that since the filling up of the land may adversely affect other agricultural operations and work opportunities, especially in respect of the rest of the padasekharam. However, petitioner submits that when lawful permission is received, after the recommendation of experts, third parties had no jurisdiction to field objections and their resistance was illegal. According to him, it is a genuine case where State should come to the help.

(3.) We had opportunity to hear Shri. Asok M. Cherian appearing for the private respondents. It is submitted that they are contemplating filing an application for review of the orders since the conversion of land is likely to create imbalances in the area and possibly irrigation to other agricultural fields and drainage will be blocked. However, their locus standi is objected to by the petitioner. It is asserted that the apprehensions are without basis.