N. RAMACHANDRAN Vs. SALIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the appellants, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/petitioner in the writ petition.

(2.) Appellants, who are not parties to the writ petition, have filed this writ appeal after obtaining leave aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.3147/2017. By the judgment under appeal, taking note of the fact that the land of the first respondent is not included in the data bank prepared under Act 28 of 2008, the learned Single Judge permitted the first respondent to proceed with the construction of the building, without even waiting for orders on the application filed by him under the Kerala Land Utilisation Act. It is this judgment, which is under challenge.

(3.) Having heard the rival submissions made, according to us, the direction contained in the judgment to the extent it permits the first respondent to proceed with the construction even before obtaining an order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Act is untenable. If as stated by the learned Single Judge, the land in question is not included in the data bank prepared under Act 28 of 2008, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep, (2015) 1 Kerala Law Times 984 it is incumbent on the part of the first respondent to have obtained an order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Act. It is seen that realising that requirement, the first respondent had already made an application to that effect. It is pending such application that the learned Single Judge has allowed him to proceed with the construction of the building.