K. P. OUSEPH Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners 1 and 2 are husband and wife. The 3rd petitioner is their son. The 2 nd petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.0562 hectares of land in Re-survey Nos.36/22 and 36/23 and the 3rd petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.2535 hectares of land in Re-survey Nos.36/1 and 36/2 in Panachery Village in Thrissur Taluk, covered under Exts.P1 and P2 possession certificates. The respondents had erroneously classified the land as 'Nilam' in the revenue records. Consequently, the petitioners had submitted an application in Form-6 under Sec. 27A read with Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 ('Act and Rules' in short), to change the nature of 0.2788 hectares of land in the revenue records. By Ext.P4 order, the application was allowed, but with the rider that the petitioners should set apart 0.0309 hectares of land for water conservancy measures. Consequently, the 3rd respondent changed the nature of the above extent of land in the revenue records. However, when the 1st petitioner submitted Ext.P6 request before the 5th respondent for permission to construct a building, a defect was noted regarding any construction in the area set apart for water conservancy measures. Although 0.0309 hectares of land have been set apart for the water conservancy measures, there is no legal embargo for the petitioners to park vehicles in the area. The petitioners would take every precaution to ensure that the rain water falls directly in the area set apart for the water conservancy measures and the water seeps into the earth. The parking of the vehicles in the area will not cause any hindrance to the free flow of water. Even though the 3rd petitioner submitted Ext.P10 request to the 2nd respondent to grant the layout approval, the same has not been considered. The petitioners have submitted Ext.P11 affidavit undertaking that they will not carry out any civil construction in the reserved area and that the vehicular parking will not interrupt the water harvesting. The inaction on the part of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

(2.) In the statement filed by the 2 nd respondent it is contended that, after calling for a report from the Agricultural Officer, the Form-6 was allowed as per the sketch submitted by the petitioners for water conservancy measures. The petitioners propose to construct a building in the land set apart for the water conservancy measures, which cannot be permitted. It was in the above background that the petitioners were directed to correct the anomalies in their application for the layout approval. There is no illegality in the action taken by the respondents.

(3.) The petitioners have filed a reply-affidavit refuting the allegations in the statement filed by the 2 nd respondent. They have produced Ext.P12 site plan/sketch submitted by them along with the Form-6 application. They have stated that they have no intention to utilise the property set apart for the water conservancy measures for any construction. The petitioners undertake to construct a percolation pit in the land for the water conservancy, which satisfies the requirements under Sec. 2 (xviiB) of the Act. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to permit the proposed construction.