GEO PETER Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of 12.95 Ares of property in Survey. No. 1006/7A; 13.75 Ares of property in Survey No. 1007/1A; and 4.05 Ares of property in Survey No. 1007/1B of Kothamangalam Village, has filed this Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P8 order dated 17.05.2018 of the 1st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, to the extent it stipulates that the permission granted under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 should not be acted upon without effecting changes in the revenue records as per the provisions under S. 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 and for setting apart 10% of the total area of the land, by quashing condition Nos. 1 and 4 in the said order. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the provisions contained in S. 27A and S. 27C of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 is unconstitutional; a declaration that the conditions stipulated in Ext. P8 order that the permission granted thereby under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 would be subject to the provisions contained in S. 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 and the conditions stipulated therein/as Condition Nos. 1 and 4, to make changes in the revenue records as provided thereunder, and to set apart 10% of the total extent of the property for water conservation measures, is illegal and opposed to law; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Municipality to issue building permit to the petitioner on the basis of the application dated 03.10.2010, referred to in Ext. P3, without insisting for the fulfillment of condition Nos. 1 and 4, as stipulated in Ext. P8 order.

(2.) On 31.05.2018, when this Writ Petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the 1st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer. The learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 2nd respondent Municipality. The respondents were directed to file counter affidavit within one month. This Court granted an interim stay of operation of condition No. 1 in Ext. P8 order and further directed the 2nd respondent Municipality to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner, in the light of Ext. P8 order, as clarified by this Court in the interim order dated 31.05.2018.

(3.) By the order dated 29.10.2018 in I.A. No. 1 of 2018, the Tahsildar (Land Records), Kothamangalam was impleaded as additional 3rd respondent. A memo has been filed by the learned Special Government Pleader to adopt the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents in W.P.(C) No. 2314 of 2018 as the counter affidavit of the official respondents in this Writ Petition. Along with I.A. No. 2 of 2019, the petitioner has produced Exts. P13 and P15, which are accepted as additional documents on the side of the petitioner, by an order of this date.