Prasanth v. District Collector, Kollam; Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam; Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Chadayamangalam; Chadayamangalam Grama Panchayat; Village Officer, Chadayamangalam Village; Addl.R6 LLMC

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2017/21ST ASHADHA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 40823 of 2016 (C)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER : ---------------------** **PRASANTH, S/O.RAJAN PILLA, AGED 30 YEARS, HOUSE NO.87, ASWATHI BHAVAN, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.K.VINAYAKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **---------------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION , KOLLAM-691 013.** **2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691 013.** **3. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM-691 312 (THE CONVENER, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, CHADAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT).** **4. THE CHADAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHADAYAMANGALAM P.O.,KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,** - **CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHADAYAMANGALAM,P.O. KOLLAM-691 312** **2/-** **-2-** **WP(C).No. 40823 of 2016 (C)** ## ***ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED** ***Addl. R6. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, UNDER KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT, CHADAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHADAYAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM-691 312.** ***ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13/01/2017 IN IA.NO.277/2017.** **R1 TO R3,R5 & ADDL.R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN R4 BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU** **SMT.RENY ANTO** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C).No. 40823 of 2016 (C)** ## **------------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **---------------------------------------** - **EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 13-07-2015 REGARDING REMITTANCE OF BASIC TAX IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF LOCATION SKETCH PREPARED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE NEARBY CONSTRUCTIONS AND TARRED ROADS LEADING TO THE BUILDING ETC.** - **EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER AND SURROUNDINGS.** - **EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05-05-2016 BEARING NO.B2 1651/2016 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY.** - **EXHIBIT P6 THE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER KERALA LAND UTILISATION ORDER.** - **EXHIBIT P7 THE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P8 THE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 26-08-2016.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** **------------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** -----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 40823 of 2016 (C) -----------------------------------------Dated:12[th] July, 2017 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P5 rejection of an application for building permit. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.05 Ares in Re-Survey No.179/3-4 in Block No.42 of Chadayamangalam Village. The petitioner, without applying for a permit under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 ('Building Rules 2011' for short), constructed a residential building and applied for numbering of the building after construction. The same was declined by Ext.P5. In Ext.P5 it was specifically pointed out that the petitioner's construction was in a property which is described as 'nilam' in the Basic Tax Register. Finding that the revenue records describes the property as 'nilam' the numbering of the building was declined. ## **W.P.(C) No. 40823/2016** **-2-** 2. The petitioner contends that, by Ext.P6, the nearby properties were allowed conversion of user under Clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, (for brevity “KLU Order”) and the petitioner has also made a similar prayer before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) as per Ext.P7. The Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) has also been approached with Ext.P8 for removing the subject property from the data bank, which is also said to be notified. 3. The Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit in which the grounds in Ext.P5 have been reiterated. It is asserted that the Panchayat's hands are tied insofar as the description of the property as available from the village records. 4. This Court had directed the LLMC of Chadayamangalam Grama panchayat to make physical inspection and file a report. The report has been placed on record by memo dated 16.02.2017. The LLMC has **-3-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 40823/2016** inspected the property in the presence of the Village Officer who identified the property. The property is said to be lying as a dry land with a concrete building, a temporary shed and a standing coconut tree of approximately 20 years age. The boundaries of the property are said to be banana plantation on the eastern side, fallow wet land on the southern side, rubber plantation on the northern and western side. There is no paddy cultivation in the area and there are also found other existing buildings within 20 meters of the subject property. The data bank, though includes the land, describes it as 'tharishu' (fallow land). The decision of the LLMC, as to the land found to be now existing as a dry land, is also produced along with the report. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep - 2015 (1) KLT 984 SC** , has held that a land would be covered under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 only if ## **W.P.(C) No. 40823/2016** **-4-** the land is included in the data bank prepared as 'paddy land' or 'wet land'. Herein, the data bank includes the property, but, as 'tharishu' (fallow land). The LLMC has also reported that the property is converted and remains as a 'dry land' without any paddy cultivation in the area. In such circumstance, Ext.P7 application of the petitioner before the RDO under Clause (6) of the KLU Order has to be considered in accordance with the declaration in **Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector - 2015 (3) KLT 182** . The LLMC should also consider Ext.P8 in accordance with the amendment made by G.O.(P) No.34/2017/Revenue dated 30.05.2017 for removing the land from the data bank in accordance with the report as filed before this Court. The petitioner could also approach the land tax authorities after conversion of user is obtained under Clause (6) of the KLU Order so as to assess the land afresh as 'garden land', as has been declared in **Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath V. Mariumma - 2015(2) KLT 516** . ## **W.P.(C) No. 40823/2016** **-5-** 6. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent Panchayat submits that the building was constructed without even a permit or sanctioned plan under the Building Rules 2011. In such circumstance, the petitioner would necessarily have to file an application for regularisation under Chapter XXII of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules,2011, with a plan of the aforesaid construction. The Secretary of the Panchayat would consider the regularisation application in accordance with law, but after inspecting the building and verifying as to the compliance of the various provisions under the Building Rules 2011. 7. The local authority need not detain itself; for the conversion of user or removal from the data bank. Ext.P5 is set aside, directing the petitioner to file an application for regularisation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and consideration of the same by the Secretary within a period ## **W.P.(C) No. 40823/2016** **-6-** of two months from the date of receipt of the application, in accordance with the directions herein. The writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 12/7/17