W.P.(C) Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2012/18TH ASHADHA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 27573 of 2009 (N)** **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **1. SHAJI P.T,S/O.VARKEY KURIAN, POKKATHAI HOUSE, KURUPAMPADY, PRALAYIKKAD KARA, VENGOOR WEST, KURUPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **2. AJI MATHAI, S/O.M.K.MATHAI, NADAKAL HOUSE, KURUPAMPADY, PRALAYIKKAD KARA, VENGOOR WEST, KURUPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** - **BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE** **RESPONDENT(S):** **---------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ERNAKULAM.** **3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **4. MUDAKUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUDAKUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **5. K.K.MATHEW KUNJU, S/O.MATHULLA KURIAKKO, (RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEMBER) KILIYAYATH HOUSE, KURUPPAMPADY P.O., PRALAYIKKAD KARA, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, KURUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **6. MATHULLA KURIAKKO, S/O.MATHULLA, KILIYAYATH HOUSE, KURUPPAMPADY P.O., PRALAYIKKAD KARA, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, KURUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** - **R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.MAYA R5 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR SRI.IMTHIYAZ AHAMED** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-07-2012, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.6033 OF 2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **WP(C)NO.27573/2009** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1 COPY OF THE STOP-MEMO ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 13/10/2007** - **P2 COPY OF THE SURVEY PLAN DATED 05/12/2008 SHOWING THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RE.SY.NO.196/2 BLOCK NO.17 OF VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE.** - **P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 22/09/2008** - **P4 COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE PANCHAYATH BOARD MEETING VIDE NO.11(3) AND II(5)** - **P5 COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE GRAMA SABHA OF THE 4TH PANCHAYATH** - **P6 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A3.15/09 DATED 24/08/2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS AND ANNEXURES:** - **R5(A) COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L5-50922/07/K.DIS DATED 24/9/2007** - **R5(B) COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3-413/07/01 DATED 10/7/2007 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.** - **R5(C) COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KURUPPAMPADY BEARING NO.16/PA2/09-10/KSEB/K (MPDY) DATED 28/5/2009** - **R5(D) COPY OF THE CONSENT DEED EXECUTED BY THE FATHER OF THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 25/12/2005** - **R5(E) COPY OF THE CONSENT DEED EXECUTED BY THE FATHER OF THE SECOND PETITIONER DATED 25/12/2005** - **R5(F) COPY OF THE CONSENT NO.PTB/EKM/ICE/64/09 DATED 06/05/2009** - **R5(G) COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE NO.A3/07/447 DATED 18/8/2007 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.** - **R5(H) COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT BEARING NO.92 DATED 18/8/2007** - **R5(I) COPY OF THE D & O LICENSE NO.A3.284/2006 DATED 30/8/2006 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.** - **R5(J) COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY ME BEFORE THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM THROUGH GREEN CHANNEL DATED 10/7/2009** - **R5(K) COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DRAWN IN FAVOUR OF THE CONVENOR, SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD DATED 19/8/2009.** **2/-** **sts** **-2-** **WP(C)NO.27573/2009** **ANNEX A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.L5/50922/07/KDIS DATED 24/09/07 ANNEX B COPY OF THE REPORT NO.486/2009 DATED 29/10/09 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGOOR WEST. ANNEX C COPY OF THE SITE INSPECTION REPORT NO.600/2009 DATED 08/12/09 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VENGOOR WEST.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.** **------------------------------W.P.(C) Nos.27573 of 2009 & 6033 of 2012 -------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of July, 2012** ## **JUDGMENT** A common issue arises for consideration in these writ petitions. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C)No.6033 of 2012 is treated as the main case and unless otherwise mentioned, the parties and documents referred to are with reference to the said writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The father of the ninth respondent in W.P.(C)No.6033 of 2012 (the sixth respondent in the connected case), owned a parcel of land, 18.40 ares in extent, situate in R.S.No.196/2 of Kunnathunad Taluk, Ernakulam District. With a view to put up a plywood factory therein under the name and style 'M/s.Classic Industries', he applied to the Secretary of Mudakuzha Grama Panchayat for permission to establish a factory under rule 12 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Licensing of Dangerous and Offensive ## **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:2:- Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996. The Committee of the Mudakuzh Grama Panchayat that met on 19.8.2006 resolved to grant the permission sought by the ninth respondent's father. Thereupon, the Secretary of the Mudakuzha Grama Panchayat issued Ext.P6 order dated 30.8.2006 according sanction to the ninth respondent's father to install machinery in the lands situate in R.S.No.196/2 of Vengoor West Village, subject to the terms and conditions stipulated therein. 3. Though the land in R.S.No.196/2 of Vengoor West Village was initially paddy land, it had ceased to be cultivated with paddy and the ninth respondent's father had planted coconut and arecanut palms therein. After Ext.P6 order was passed, the ninth respondent's father submitted an application under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 to the District Collector, Ernakulam for permission to covert 9.23 ares of land in R.S.No.196/2. He also applied to the Secretary of Mudakuzha Grama Panchayat for a development permit. By Ext.P1 order passed on 10.7.2007, the Secretary of Mudakuzha Grama Panchayat granted permission to develop 9.23 ares of land in R.S.No.196/2 of Vengoor West Village, Kunnathunad Taluk, **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:3:- Ernakulam District, subject to the condition that the existing trees should be retained as far as possible and more number of trees planted in the available space after development. It was also stipulated that the permission is subject to satisfaction of the provisions in the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. 4. In the meanwhile, acting on the application submitted by the ninth respondent's father, the District Collector, Ernakulam called for reports from the Additional Tahsildar, Kunnathunad Taluk, the Principal Agricultural Officer, Ernakulam and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha after inspecting the land recommended conversion of the land for industrial purpose. The Principal Agricultural Officer submitted a report to the effect that the land is not suitable for paddy cultivation and that filling up of the land will not cause any ecological problems. The Additional Tahsildar submitted a report to the effect that the land has not been cultivated for years and aged coconut and arecanut palms are in existence therein. She also recommended conversion of the land, as according to her it was not suitable for paddy cultivation. The District Collector, Ernakulam considered the aforesaid reports **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:4:- and issued Ext.P2 order dated 24.9.2007, allowing the application filed by the ninth respondent's father for conversion of 9.23 ares of land situate in R.S.No.196/2 of Vengoor West Village, Kunnathunad Taluk, Ernakulam District. 5. The ninth respondent's father converted the entire extent of 18.40 ares of land in R.S.No.196/2 of Vengoor West Village and commenced the construction of a compound wall around the property. The Village Officer of Vengoor West Village thereupon issued Ext.P3 stop memo on 3.10.2007, restraining him from proceeding with the conversion of the land. The Secretary of Mudakuzha Grama Panchayat thereafter issued Ext.P4 notice dated 22.9.2008 to the ninth respondent's father calling upon him to stop the construction of the compound wall and to inform the Panchayat in writing that he has stopped the construction of the compound wall, failing which he was informed that appropriate action will be taken against him in accordance with law. The ninth respondent's father however proceeded with the construction of the compound wall. The committee of the Panchayat that met on 22.4.2009 therefore resolved that Ext.P6 order granting permission under rule 12 of the Kerala Panchayat **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:5:- Raj (Licensing of Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996, need not be renewed. The committee also resolved to have the land surveyed to ascertain whether the compound wall has been constructed encroaching into the poramboke land vested in the Panchayat. It is stated that though the ninth respondent's father challenged that resolution by moving the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in appeal, the appeal was dismissed. Further details are however not forthcoming. 6. While matters stood thus, the Grama Sabha of Mudakkuzha Grama Panchayat at its meeting held on 3.6.2009 resolved to take steps to survey and demarcate the land wherein the ninth respondent's father was putting up a building, to ascertain whether he has encroached upon poramboke land and to take steps to prevent the construction going on therein. The Secretary of the Panchayat had in the meanwhile issued two stop memos dated 22.9.2008 and 16.3.2009 and after the Grama Sabha met another memo dated 9.7.2009. The petitioners thereafter filed W.P.(C)No.27573 of 2009 in this Court for an order directing the Mudakkuzha Grama Panchayat to implement **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:6:- the stop memos issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat and the decision taken by the Grama Sabha. The petitioners also sought an order directing the District Collector, Ernakulam to take steps in the matter of unauthorised filling up of paddy land in R.S.No.196/2 of Vengoor West Village. The petitioners also sought other incidental and allied reliefs. 7. When W.P.(C)No.27573 of 2009 came up for hearing on 1.10.2009, a learned single Judge of this Court directed the District Collector, Ernakulam to obtain a report with reference to the allegations in the writ petition and to place it before this Court through the learned Government Pleader. This Court also observed that it will be open to the District Collector to take appropriate action under the magisterial powers and other enabling laws, if found necessary. The District Collector, Ernakulam, thereupon submitted a report dated 8.12.2009 wherein she stated that her predecessor-in-interest has by Ext.P2 order dated 24.9.2007 granted permission to convert 9.23 ares of paddy land, that the Village Officer, Vengoor West Village, has filed a report dated 29.10.2009 to the effect that the predecessorin-interest of the ninth respondent has reclaimed land in excess of **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:7:- the permissible limits and that the Village Officer, Vengoor West Village, has after site inspection submitted a report dated 8.12.2009 to the effect that a compound wall has been put up all around the reclaimed land and that a shed is also in existence therein. The District Collector, Ernakulam, thereafter issued Ext.P11 order dated 11.12.2009 cancelling Ext.P2. The ninth respondent and his father thereupon filed W.P.(C)No.1027 of 2010 in this Court challenging the said order, which was produced and marked as Ext.P7 therein. In that writ petition an interim order was passed staying further action pursuant to Ext.P11 order for a period of one month. This Court also directed that the interim order will not however, enable the petitioners therein (the ninth respondent and his father) from making any additional constructions. The interim order passed by this Court on 13.1.2010 in W.P.(C)No.1027 of 2010 was not extended thereafter. 8. While matters stood thus, the ninth respondent and his father applied for and obtained Ext.P13 Letter of Consent from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and Ext.P14 No Objection Certificate from the District Medical Officer of Health, Ernakulam **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:8:- and moved the Ernakulam District Single Window Clearance Board constituted under section 4 of the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Single Window Clearance Act for short). The ninth respondent's father also submitted an application to the State Level Committee for Wood Based Industries for a No Objection Certificate. It was after such an application was submitted that the ninth respondent and his father moved the Ernakulam District Single Window Clearance Board for permission to establish a ply wood factory in the disputed lands. The District Single Window Clearance Board that met on 16.11.2009 resolved to grant the permission sought by the ninth respondent and his father. Though the District Single Window Clearance Board resolved to grant the licence sought by the ninth respondent and his father, the Secretary of Mudakkuzha Grama Panchayat declined to issue the necessary licence under the Single Window Clearance Act. The ninth respondent's father thereafter filed an application dated 13.1.2010 before the District Single Window Clearance Board. The District Single Window Clearance Board that met on 23.3.2010 considered the matter and resolved **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:9:- to issue a deemed licence in terms of section 10 of the Single Window Clearance Act after the No Objection Certificate from the State Level Committee for Wood Base Industries is produced. Shortly thereafter the ninth respondent's father passed away on 7.4.2010 and a few days later, the State Level Committee for Wood Based Industries issued Ext.P15 No Objection Certificate dated 31.5.2010 certifying that there is no objection to the functioning of M/s.Classic Industries, MP-VIII/465 A, Pralikadu, Karuppanpadi P.O., Perumbavoor, Ernakulam District subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The ninth respondent produced a copy of Ext.P15 before the District Single Window Clearance Board on 14.6.2010. The District Single Window Clearance Board that met on 21.6.2010 considered its earlier decisions and the failure of the Secretary of the Panchayat to issue the licence and issued Ext.P17 order dated 21.6.2010 under the Single Window Clearance Act, to the effect that the licence would be deemed to have been issued under section 10 thereof. The petitioners herein thereafter submitted Ext.P18 representation dated nil before the District Collector, Ernakulam, requesting him to cancel the permission issued to the ninth respondent and his father and **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:10:- Ext.P20 representation dated nil requesting the Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Mudakkuzha to cancel Ext.P19 certificate issued by him to the effect that as per the data bank prepared after the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, the land belonging to the ninth respondent is classified as garden land. 9. W.P.(C)No.6033 of 2012 was thereafter filed on 9.3.2012 challenging Ext.P13 Letter of Consent issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Ext.P14 No Objection Certificate issued by the District Medical Officer of Health, Ernakulam, Ext.P17 order dated 21.6.2010 issued by the Secretary of Ernakulam District Single Window Clearance Board under section 10 of the Single Window Clearance Act and Ext.P19 certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Mudakkuzha and seeking a declaration that the property of the ninth respondent being paddy land, is not suitable for establishing any industrial unit and all licenses/consents issued to him ignoring Ext.P11 order are illegal and unenforceable. The petitioners have also sought other consequential reliefs. 10. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:11:- though the ninth respondent and his father had filed W.P.(C) No.1027 of 2010, it was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.2.2012, that with the dismissal of the said writ petition, Ext.P11 order has attained finality, that when Ext.P11 was issued the permission granted by the District Collector, Ernakulam under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order 1967 permitting the ninth respondent's father to convert 9.23 ares of land in R.S.No.196/2 of Vengoor West Village stood cancelled and therefore, the District Single Window Clearance Board erred in issuing Ext.P17 order under section 10 of the Single Window Clearance Act. It is stated that the full facts were not placed before the District Single Window Clearance Board and that Ext.P17 order was issued without notice to them or affording them or other local residents who have objected to the establishment of the industrial unit, an opportunity of being heard and therefore, for that reason also Ext.P17 order is liable to be set aside. As regards Ext.P13 Letter of Consent issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and Ext.P14 No Objection Certificate issued by the District Medical Officer of Health, Ernakulam, it is contended that they were issued without any enquiry and without noticing the fact that if a ply **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:12:- wood factory is established in the disputed lands, it would pollute a nearby stream and pond. With reference to Ext.P15 No Objection Certificate issued by the State Level Committee for Wood Based Industries it is contended that as the applicant (ninth respondent's father) expired on 7.4.2010, the grant in his favour made on 31.5.2010 has no efficacy. 11. The ninth respondent has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 19.6.2012 raising various contentions. In paragraph 10 it is contended that the District Collector issued Ext.P11 order dated 11.12.2009 cancelling Ext.P2 order issued by the then District Collector without notice to him or his father and without affording him an opportunity to show cause why Ext.P2 order is not liable to be cancelled and therefore, it has no effect at all. It is also contended that Ext.P13 Letter of Consent and Ext.P14 No Objection Certificate have been validly issued after enquiry and that the Environmental Engineer of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and the District Medical Officer of Health were satisfied that the functioning of the industrial unit will not cause any pollution or nuisance to the nearby residents. As regards Ext.P15 No Objection Certificate issued by the State Level **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:13:- Committee for Wood Based Industries it is contended that the No Objection Certificate was issued in the name of M/s.Classic Industries and therefore, the mere fact that the applicant died shortly before the No Objection Certificate was issued, is not a reason to invalidate the licence. It is also contented that in view of the decision taken by the District Single Window Clearance Board, of which the District Collector, Ernakulam, is the Chairman and Ext.P17 order issued under section 10 of the Single Window Clearance Act, Ext.P11 order cancelling Ext.P2 permission to convert the land stands nullified and that it was in view of Ext.P17 order and the letter dated 12.1.2012 sent by the General Manager, District Industries Centre and the letter dated 21.1.2012 sent by the District Collector, Ernakulam to the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk directing him to grant police protection to the ninth respondent to erect machinery in his unit, that he filed I.A.No.2669 of 2011 in W.P.(C)No.1027 of 2010 for leave to withdraw that writ petition and therefore, as Ext.P11 order was superseded with the issuance of Ext.P17 order granting a deemed licence, the order dismissing W.P.(C)No.1027 of 2010 as withdrawn, cannot be held out against him. **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:14:- 12. I heard Sri.Philip T.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.P.Maya, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala and its officers, Sri.Arun Basil, learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent Grama Panchayat and Sri.P.K.Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the ninth respondent. Sri.Philip T.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that as the ninth respondent and his predecessor-in-interest had illegally reclaimed 18.40 ares of land in the place of 9.23 ares contrary to Ext.P2 order, the permission for conversion granted was cancelled by Ext.P11 order dated 11.12.2009 issued by the District Collector, Ernakulam, that the challenge to the said order stood withdrawn with the dismissal of W.P.(C)No.1027 of 2010 on 27.2.2012 and therefore, as the land was not lawfully converted, the ninth respondent is not entitled to establish an industrial unit in the land notwithstanding the Letter of Consent issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, the No Objection Certificate issued by the District Medical Officer of Health, Ernakulam and the No Objection Certificate issued by the State Level Committee for Wood Based Industries. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that ## **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:15:- in such circumstances the mere fact that the District Single Window Clearance Board, which was unaware of the illegal conversion of land, had resolved to grant the licence applied for by the ninth respondent and his predecessor-in-interest is not a reason to hold that Ext.P17 order granting a deemed licence under section 10 of the Single Window Clearance Act has efficacy. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even after the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, the District Collector has jurisdiction to cancel the permission granted under the Kerala Land Utilization Order and as the challenge to Ext.P11 order was withdrawn, the ninth respondent cannot be permitted to establish an industrial unit in the disputed lands. 13 **.** Per contra, Sri.P.K.Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the ninth respondent contended that after the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 was brought into force with effect from 12.8.2008, the Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under section 5 of the said Act had prepared a data bank and in the data bank, the land belonging to the ninth respondent was not included in the list of **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:16:- paddy lands, that the Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Mudakkuzha thereupon issued Ext.P19 certificate on 19.10.2011 certifying the said fact and that it was pursuant to the preparation of the data bank in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, that the District Single Window Clearance Board resolved to grant permission to establish the industrial unit and issued Ext.P17 order under section 10 of the Single Window Clearance Act to the effect that a licence would be deemed to have been issued to the ninth respondent's father. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the ninth respondent contended that before Ext.P11 order was passed, the ninth respondent or his predecessor-in-interest were not put on notice or heard and therefore, it cannot affect their rights. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the ninth respondent contended relying on the decisions of this Court in **Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner** (2010 (2) KLT 617) and **Jafarkhan v. Kochumarakkar** (2012 (1) KLT 491) that the prohibition contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 is only in respect of conversion or reclamation of paddy land after 12.8.2008, that conversion of **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:17:- paddy land made prior to that date cannot be said to be in violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and therefore, the District Collector could not have issued Ext.P11 order canceling Ext.P2. The learned Senior Advocate contended that on and with effect from 12.8.2008, the Kerala Land Utilization order, 1967 ceased to have application in respect of paddy lands and therefore even assuming that there was any illegal conversion before 12.8.2008, action cannot be taken under the new Act. The learned Senior Advocate contended with reference to the stipulations in Ext.P2 order that even before the District Collector issued it, the land had ceased to be paddy land and was principally planted with coconut and arecanut palms. Relying on the report dated 29.10.2009 submitted by the Village Officer to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha, which is appended to Ext.P10, the learned Senior Advocate contended that the Village Officer has in the said report stated that the land was converted 2 ½ years prior to 29.10.2009, thereby indicating that even before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 was enacted and brought into force, as stated in Ext.P2 itself, the land had ceased to be paddy land and therefore, the **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:18:- petitioner’s cannot contend that after the Act was enacted and brought into force, the ninth respondent and his predecessor-ininterest have illegally converted the land. The learned Senior Advocate contended that in the data bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee, the disputed land was not classified as paddy land and therefore, for that reason also, no objection can be taken to the establishment of a plywood factory in the premises. Relying on the provisions contained in the Single Window Clearance Act, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the ninth respondent contended that the District Collector had even before Ext.P11 order was passed chaired the meeting of the Single Window Clearance Board held on 16.11.2009, directed the grant of the licence applied for and had thereafter without noticing that fact issued Ext.P11 order dated 11.12.2009 cancelling Ext.P2 order and still later chaired the meetings of the District Single Window Clearance Board held on 23.3.2010 and 14.6.2010 wherein a decision was taken to grant a deemed licence in view of the failure of the local authority to abide by the directions of the District Single Window Clearance Board and therefore, it cannot be said that the District Collector was unaware of Ext.P11 order when **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:19:- the District Single Window Clearance Board, of which he is the Chairman, directed the grant of a licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licences to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996. 14. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. Ext.P2, which is the order granting the permission applied for by the ninth respondent, refers to a report dated 27.7.2007 submitted by the Additional Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu Taluk to the effect that the disputed land has not been cultivated for several years and that a large number of coconut and arecanut palms are in existence therein. The Tahsildar had also recommended that permission for conversion can be granted as the land is not suitable for paddy cultivation. The Principal Agricultural Officer had also submitted a similar report. Even earlier, the local authority concerned namely the Mudakuzha Grama Panchayat had issued Ext.P1 development permit. It is no doubt true that the development permit was issued in respect of 9.23 ares of land out of a total extent of 18.40 ares. The reports submitted by the Additional Tahsildar, Mudakuzha and the Principal Agricultural Officer, Ernakulam were **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:20:- to the effect that the land had ceased to be paddy land and was planted with coconut and arecanut palms. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha also recommended conversion of the land for industrial purposes. The ninth respondent and his predecessor-in-interest were obliged to move under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 only because of the stipulation in Ext.P1 development permit that it is issued subject to the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. Though permission was given to convert only 9.23 ares out of 18.40 ares, the entire extent of land was converted and a building was also put up. The Village Officer has in his report dated 29.10.2009, which was submitted to the District Collector, Ernakulam after W.P.(C)No. 27573 of 2009 was filed, stated the conversion was over even in the year 2007. It was thereafter that the Kerala Conservation of the Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 was brought into force with effect from 12.8.2008. Pursuant thereto, a data bank was prepared based on the report submitted by the Local Level Monitoring Committee and in that report, the disputed land was not classified as paddy land. Ext.P19 certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer establishes the said fact. The said **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:21:- certificate also discloses that the disputed land had ceased to be paddy land about 15 years back. 15. A Division bench of this Court has in **Jafarkhan v. Kochumarakkar** (supra) held that the prohibition contained in section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 which came into force with effect from 12.8.2008 has no retrospective effect and that conversion of paddy land or wet land made prior to the coming into force of the Act (prior to 12.8.2008) cannot be said to be in violation of section 13 of the Act so as to authorize the District Collector to reconvert the paddy land which was converted in violation of the provisions of the Act. It is clear from sections 3 and 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, that the District Collector is not empowered to order reconversion of paddy land which was converted before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 was enacted and brought into force. I have in W.P.(C)No.1934 of 2012 considered the effect of an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, taking advantage of which the applicants had reclaimed a larger extent of land and held that as the land had **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:22:- already been converted and a petroleum outlet was also established therein before 12.8.2008, after the District Collector issued a No Objection Certificate under rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules 2002, notwithstanding the illegality committed by the applicants in converting 40 cents of land in the place of 20 cents of land and using it for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was permitted, no action can be taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer to revoke the orders passed by him earlier, granting permission to convert the land. It was held that there is no stipulation in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, which empowers even the District Collector to reopen past transactions or to review orders passed under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 and therefore the Revenue Divisional Officer could not have cancelled the orders issued by his predecessor in office granting permission for conversion. In that case, the District Collector who upheld the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on appeal had himself granted a No Objection Certificate under rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules 2002. In the instant case the District Collector as the Chairman of the District Single Window Clearance Board constituted under section **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:23:- 4 of the Single Window Clearance Act had in three meetings presided over by him considered the application submitted by the ninth respondent's predecessor-in-interest for grant of a licence to establish and run a plywood manufacturing factory and had directed the grant of a licence having regard to the Letter of Consent issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and the No Objection Certificates issued by the District Medical Officer of Health, Ernakulam and the State Level Monitoring Committee for Wood Based Industries. In such circumstances, as the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet Land Act, 2008 does not empower the District Collector to reopen past transactions or to review the orders passed by the District Collector under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 and as Ext.P11 order was admittedly passed without notice to the ninth respondent and his father, I am of the opinion that Ext.P11 cannot be held out against the ninth respondent to deny him the benefits flowing from the decision taken by the District Single Window Clearance Board. That apart, in the data bank prepared after the Kerala Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 was enacted and brought into force, the disputed land was not classified as paddy land. In such circumstances as **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:24:- the development permit had been issued in the year 2006 and permission to convert the land had been issued in the year 2007 and the land was not being cultivated with paddy even before the development permit was issued, I am of the opinion that the petitioners cannot successfully challenge the Letter of Consent issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and the No Objection Certificates issued by the District Medical Officer of Health, Ernakulam and the State Level Monitoring Committee for Wood Based Industries. 16. It is evident from the letter dated 5.1.2012 available at page 4 of Ext.P23 produced along with the writ petition (the application filed by the ninth respondent to withdraw W.P.(C) No.1027 of 2010) that pursuant to Ext.P17 order issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ernakulam in exercise of the power under section 10 of the Single Window Clearance Act, the District Collector had sent a letter dated 21.12.2011 withdrawing the stop memo issued by the Village Officer on 3.5.2011. It was thereafter that the ninth respondent filed I.A. No.2669 of 2011 to withdraw W.P.(C)No.1027 of 2010 on the averment that in view of the letter sent by the Village **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:25:- Officer pursuant to the direction issued by the District Collector, there is no necessity to proceed with the writ petition. It was also stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the Single Window Clearance Board took a decision to issue the licence after the data bank was prepared and the land was classified as garden land. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the withdrawal of W.P.(C)No. 1027 of 2010 wherein Ext.P11 order was under challenge, cannot be held out against the ninth respondent. The District Collector who is the Chairman of the District Single Window Clearance Board by virtue of the provisions contained in sub section (4) of section 4 of the Single Window Clearance Act cannot be said to be unaware of Ext.P11 order which in fact was issued only after the first meeting of the District Level Single Window Clearance Board held on 16.11.2009. Later, two other meetings were held on 23.3.2010 and 14.6.2010 and it was as decided in the meeting held on 14.6.2010, that Ext.P17 order was issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre in exercise of the power under section 10 of the Single Window Clearance Act which states that if no clearance, licence or certificate as the case may be, is issued within the time **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:26:- limit of ten working days from the date of receipt of the recommendations of the District Board, the clearance, licence or certificate as the case may be recommended by the District Board, shall be deemed to have been issued after the expiry of ten working days. Before the District Single Window Clearance Board took the decision to issue a deemed licence, it had met thrice, deliberated over the issue and had also taken note of the fact that the neighbouring land owners have raised objections. I accordingly hold that the challenge to Ext.P17 order issued under section 10 of the Act, Ext.P13 Letter of Consent issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and Exts.P14 and P15 No Objection Certificates issued by the District Medical Officer of Health and the State Level Committee for Wood Based Industries cannot be sustained. 17. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that due to the death of the ninth respondent’s father, the application for No Objection Certificate made to the State Level Committee for Wood Based Industries ought to have been rejected, I find no merit in the said contention. Ext.P15 No Objection Certificate issued by the State **W.P(C).Nos.27573/2009 & 6033/2012** -:27:- Level Monitoring Committee for Wood Based Industries on 31.5.2010 discloses that it is issued to M/s. Classic Industries. The opening paragraph of Ext.P15 discloses that the ninth respondent’s father late Mathulla Kuriackose, who was aged 94 years, had applied for a No Objection Certificate for M/s. Classic Industries. The ninth respondent is presently running the said industry. Likewise Exts.P13, P14 and P17 also disclose that they have been issued in respect of the very same industry. In such circumstances the mere fact that the applicant passed away shortly before Ext.P15 No Objection Certificate was issued is not a ground to hold that it has no efficacy, especially in the absence of a case for the petitioners that the ninth respondent is ineligible to apply for such a No Objection Certificate. The writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs. ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN,** ## **(JUDGE)** vpv/ahg. ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.** **--------------------------W.P(C).Nos.27573 of 2009 and 6033 of 2012 ----------------------------** ## **JUDGMENT** **9[th] July, 2012**