REMADEVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is the owner in possession of 7.40 Ares of land comprised in Re - Sy.No.41/10 of Chingoli Village by virtue of the partition deed. According to the petitioners, even though the said land was originally lying as a paddy land, subsequently, the same was converted to dry land before the commencement of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. But, unfortunately, the entries in the Revenue Records were stood as paddy land and on the basis of the entries in the Revenue Records permission was denied by Ext.P9 to the petitioner to make construction for the purpose of starting a motor service station. In Ext.P9, it was also stated that the petitioners' land was included in the BTR Register and the Data Bank. According to the petitioners, Exts.P6, P7, P8 and P10 would show that the land is not a wetland and in fact it is a dry land having more than 35 years old coconut trees therein. Hence the petitioners prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P9 and quash the same and also for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the 6th respondent to consider the petitioner's application for building permit.

(2.) Heard The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) Going by Ext.P6, obviously, it is seen that the disputed land is not suitable for paddy cultivation. Further, it goes to show that even though the land was shown as paddy land in the Data Bank, the same was not in consonance with the ground reality. This Court has considered the issue, whether building permit can be granted to make construction in the land which was reclaimed before the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 in various decisions of this Court.