GEETHA MONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who claims to be the owner in possession of 50.49 cents of land in sy.nos 920/2 and 919/2 of Manalur Village in Trissur District is aggrieved by Ext P9 decision of the 2nd respondent Panchyat denying her permit for construction of a tube well.

(2.) Petitioner points out that the District Officer of the Ground Water Department had on 06.03.2019 issued Ext P7 letter according sanction for construction of the tube well in her property, based on her application. It is also the case of petitioner that the area for which she sought permit is included in Anthikad unit of assessment, which is included in "safe area" as per Ext P8 publication of the Ground Water Department and the Central Ground Water Board. Moreover it is pointed out that she had submitted Ext P1 application for permit on 16.03.2019 for construction of tube well for agricultural purposes in her property, after clearance was obtained in Ext P7, from the Ground Water Department and had produced all the requisite documents Ext P3 to P6.

(3.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Grama Panchayat.