M.A.ANEES Vs. KARUMALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner says that he has put up a construction in his property comprised of 19 cents of land in Sy.No.164/5 of Karumalloor Village, Paravur Taluk. According to the petitioner, after he constructed the building strictly as per an approved plan and permit, which were issued validly by the 2 nd respondent - Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, when he applied for its numbering, it was rejected through Ext.P10 stating that the property involved is included as a 'Paddy Land' in the Revenue Records and secondly, that the construction appears to be for the purpose of a godown, though the petitioner has sought the building permit only for construction of a commercial building. The petitioner says that he impugned Ext.P10 all the way up to the Tribunal, but that the said Authority has issued Ext.P13 confirming the stand of the Panchayat and therefore, prays that Exts.P10 and P13 be set aside.

(2.) In response, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent - Grama Panchayat submits that the land on which the construction has been made by the petitioner is shown as a 'Paddy Land' in the Revenue Records, which is evident from the Possession Certificate, though it may not have been included in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Paddy Land Act' for short). He says that apart from this, on site inspection, it was found that the construction looks like a 'godown' and therefore, that the petitioner cannot be granted an Occupancy Certificate for it, since he should have then applied for a 'Group H' Storage Occupancy instead of describing the building as a shop room in the application made for the approved plan and permit. The learned Standing Counsel, therefore, prays that Exts.P11 and P13 be allowed to operate and that this writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) The learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.K.Amminikutty, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submits that, as is evident from Ext.P15 application preferred by the petitioner himself, he is aware that his property is described as a 'Paddy Land' in the Revenue Records, even though it may not have been included in the Data Bank as such. She says, therefore, that the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO for short) could have considered the said application, but that it is not so possible in this case because the petitioner appears to have made it under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLU Order for short), which is not maintainable now on account of the amendment to the Paddy Land Act, with effect from 30.12.2017, bringing into force Section 27A and its attendant provisions. The learned Senior Government Pleader thus submits that if the petitioner is interested in any further relief, he will certainly have to make an application under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act afresh and cannot seek that Ext.P15 be taken up and disposed of.