MURALEEDHARAN Vs. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in the writ petition seeks review of the judgment.

(2.) Petitioner owns an item of property. The property of the petitioner is though categorized as paddy land in the revenue records, it was stated in the writ petition that the same is one converted as garden land long prior to coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). It was also the case of the petitioner that since the property is one converted prior to coming into force of the Act, the same was not included in the Data Bank prepared under the Act. Petitioner constructed a building in the property on the strength of Ext.P4 building permit granted to him by the local authority. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition was concerning the inaction on the part of the local authority in assigning number to the building constructed by him on the ground that the property is categorized as paddy land in the revenue records. The writ petition was disposed of along with a batch of identical cases and cases where applications for building permits have been rejected on the very same ground, permitting the petitioners in the writ petitions to prefer applications before the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order for permission to make use of the properties for other purposes as provided for under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order and directing the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order to pass orders on the applications. The case set up by the petitioner in the review petition is that when the matter was argued, the understanding was that a direction will be issued to the local authorities concerned to provisionally number the buildings in cases where buildings have been constructed in accordance with the building permits issued by the local authorities concerned and that the said direction is omitted to be included in the judgment.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the second respondent Panchayat.