K.GANGADHARAN v. BUDHANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/17TH CHAITHRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 5807 of 2014 (A) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------- K.GANGADHARAN SREE GANGA, ELANJIMEL P.O, ENNAKKAD VILLAGE BUDHANOOR, CHENGANOOR, PIN:689511. BY ADVS.SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX RESPONDENT(S): - ------------------- ## 1. BUDHANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ENNAKKADU P.O, CHENGANOOR PIN:689 624. ## 2. THE SECRETARY - BUDHANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ENNAKKADU P.O, CHENGANOOR PIN:689 624. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO) REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA-688001 R1,2 BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5807 of 2014 (A) --------------------------- ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1990 OF 2008 OF MANNAR SRO. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.448 OF 2001 OF MANNAR SRO. EXHIBITP2(A): TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1003 OF 2004 OF MANNAR SRO. - EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 30.5.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE VO BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, CHENGANNOOR. - EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 31.5.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR, CHENGANNOOR BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER. - EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALAPPUZHA ON 2.6.2012. - EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.9.2012 OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. - EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST D&O LICENSE DATED 27.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. - EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE PROPERTY. - EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BEARING NUMBER 4178 EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P9. - EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER ON 12.12.2013. - EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RDO ON 2.1.2014. - EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 7.2.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORYING COMMITTEE OF THE IST RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.1.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL ----------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== W.P.(C). No.5807 OF 2014 ==========================** Dated this the 7[th] day of April, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner owns and possesses 42 cents of land comprised in survey Nos.70/2, 70/2-1 and 70/16 of Ennakkad village. Earlier, the petitioner obtained Ext.P7 D & O licence for establishing and operating a fuel outlet thereon under the Kisan Seva Kendra Scheme. For the purpose of providing amenities to the customers of the fuel outlet, the petitioner constructed a building in the same property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed in terms of the conditions of the aforesaid scheme. After effecting such construction, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application before the second respondent for numbering the building. Thereupon, the petitioner was asked to obtain a certificate from the third respondent as per Ext.P11. Subsequently, the petitioner produced Ext.P12 certificate before the second respondent carrying a certification from the third respondent that the **W.P.(C).5807/14** 2 building in question was not constructed in violation of the provisions of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act (Kerala) 2008 (for short the 'Wet Land Act'). Thereupon, the second respondent intimated the petitioner that the entry regarding the description of the property in the BTR is to be corrected in order to consider the Ext.P9 application. This writ petition has been filed in the said circumstances contending that wrong entry in the BTR regarding the nature of the land cannot be a ground for rejecting the application to number the building. In such circumstances, the petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent to consider Ext.P9 application and to number the building in accordance with law. The petitioner also seeks for quashment of Ext.P14. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no justification for insisting the petitioner to **W.P.(C).5807/14** 3 get the entry regarding the nature of the land in BTR corrected and to produce a certificate to that effect in order to consider Ext.P9 application. It is the contention of the petitioner that if the land in question was converted prior to the commencement of the Wet Land Act, the wrong description of the land in question cannot be assigned as a reason for rejecting Ext.P9 application. The contention of the petitioner is that since the panchayat in question is a Grade-II panchayat, there is no need to apply and obtain building permit. In this case, the petitioner has already completed the construction and the completion certificate was submitted along with Ext.P9 application for numbering the building. It is the further contention of the petitioner that in respect of a land which was reclaimed prior to the commencement of the Wet Land Act, 2008, the fact that it is described still as 'Nilam' or 'paddy field' cannot be a reason for refusing to number the building or to grant building permit. To lend support to the said contention, the petitioner relied on decisions of this Court in **Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009(3)** **W.P.(C).5807/14** 4 **KLT 899]** and **Mohammed Abdul Basheer v. State of Kerala [2012 (3) KLT 86]** . The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ground reality has to be looked into by the respondents and if on inspection it is found that the land in question was reclaimed prior to the commencement of the Wet Land Act, Ext.P9 application for assignment of building number has to be considered in accordance with the relevant provisions. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that on account of the delay in the matter of assignment of building number, the petitioner is not in a position to use the building constructed in tune with the requirement under the Kisan Seva Kendra Scheme. Admittedly, Ext.P9 application submitted by the petitioner for assignment of building number is still pending before the second respondent. Obviously, the delay in its consideration is occurring solely on account of the wrong description of the property in the BTR. In the said circumstances, the second respondent is bound to take a decision on the said application for assignment of building number in accordance with the provisions and taking into account the aforesaid **W.P.(C).5807/14** 5 decisions referred above. The fact that the land in question was reclaimed prior to the commencement of the Wet Land Act is evident from Ext.P12. In such circumstances, a decision on Ext.P9 application shall be taken in the light of the decisions referred above. After considering the issue, appropriate orders shall be passed thereon expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of. **Sd/(JUDGE)** **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** **spc/** **W.P.(C).5807/14** 6 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **W.P.(C).5807/14** 7