MOOTHATTIL ANIL KUMAR Vs. THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The property owned by the petitioner as referred to in the writ petition is shown as paddy land in the revenue records. According to the petitioner, the said property has been converted long prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act) and that therefore, there is absolutely no impediment to make use of the property for construction of building after obtaining permission from the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an application for permission before the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order to make use of the property for construction of a building. Ext.P3 is the application preferred by the petitioner in this regard before the additional third respondent. Ext.P3 is pending. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the additional third respondent in taking a decision on Ext.P3 application.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) It is seen from the report filed by the Local Level Monitoring Committee, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 16.01.2017, that the property of the petitioner referred to in the writ petition is one converted long prior to coming into force of the Act. If the property is one converted prior to coming into force of the Act, the provisions of the Act would not apply. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the additional third respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 application preferred by the petitioner in the light of the decisions of this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015(3) KLT 182) and Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2017(3) KLT 822). This shall be done within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that if Ext.P3 application is allowed by the additional third respondent, the petitioner shall be granted building permit as sought by him, if he is otherwise entitled to the same.