LAWS(KER)-2019-1-271

SATHEESH PATHIYIL Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE

Decided On January 08, 2019
Satheesh Pathiyil Appellant
V/S
The District Collector Collectorate Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 2.63 Ares of property in Re.Survey No.161/8 of Palissery Village as per Document No.671/14 of Cherpu S.R.O. According to the petitioner, the property is lying as a pacca garden land for the last more than 30 years. Further more there is a motorable way to the above land and the above property is surrounded by residential plots and buildings. However, since the property is remaining in the revenue records as paddy field, petitioner submitted application before the Local Level Monitoring Committee under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2008' for short) under Section 9 seeking permission to construct a residential building in his property. However, the same was rejected by the district level authorised committee holding that the property of the petitioner is surrounded by paddy field and the construction of a residential building will affect the agricultural operations. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the District Collector, under Section 9 (6) of Act 2008. However the same was rejected on the ground of delay. It is thus challenging the above specified orders, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. Apparently the issue revolves around Ext.P13 order passed by the District Collector dated 20.7.2018, wherein it is stated that the District Level Authorising Committee has dismissed the application on 16.7.2018 and the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal within one month before the District Collector. Therefore, it is evident that the appeal submitted by the petitioner was not considered on merits, but rejected on the ground of limitation. The case projected by the petitioner is that, the above specified property is the sole property of the petitioner to construct a residential building, which is taken care of under the Proviso to Section 9 (1) of Act 2008, which reads thus.