IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5553 of 2010(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RANI STANLEY, W/O.STANLEY, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, KALLIMEL P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY CHERIYANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHERIYANAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. CHERIYANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHERIYANAD P.O., ALAPPZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No. NO.5553/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 17.8.2009 FORWARDED BY THE KVIC TO THE CANARA BANK BRACH AT CHENGANNUR. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ALAPPUZHA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERIYANAD CERTIFYING THE POSSESSION OF 20.20 AREA OF LAND BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICAT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERIYANADU CERTIFYING THAT THE LAND IS PARAMBA. EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED BY THE KSEB RELATING TO THE POWER CONNECTION TO THE PREMISES OWNED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT. EXT.P7. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT. 4.7.2009. EXT.P8. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P.(C)No. NO.36933/2009 DT. 21.12.2009. EXT.P9. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 2.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE CHERIYANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a). TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 20.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. EXT.R1(b). TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 2.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE RDO TO THIS RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.5553 of 2010 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, in the search of a job ventured into the field of self employment by proposing to start an industrial unit for the manufacture of steel furniture in Cheriyanad Panchayat in Alappuzha District. It is averred in the Writ Petition that the project was proposed to be implemented under the Prime Minister's Employment Generation Programme Scheme of the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Thiruvananthapuram with the financial assistance of the Canara Bank, Chengannur Branch. The proposal submitted by the petitioner to the Khadi and Village Industries Commission has been forwarded to the Canara Bank as evidenced by Exhibit P1. Exhibit P2 is the copy of the certificate issued by the District Industries Centre, in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner was sanctioned the loan also as recommended by the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Commission. 2. The Unit is proposed to be established in the land purchased by him extending to 20.20 Ares in Re.Sy.No.220/12, W.P.(C)No.5553/10 -2- 220/14 and 220/15 in Block No.12 of Cheriyanad Village. Exhibit P3 is the copy of the possession certificate and Exhibit P4 is the report submitted by the Village Officer. According to the petitioner, these documents will show that the property is actually a 'paramba'. For constructing the industrial unit, he was granted electric connection also as per Exhibit P5. 3. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application before the Panchayat to obtain building permit. The Panchayat has now taken a decision against him which has prompted him to file this Writ Petition. Exhibit P9 is the communication issued by the Panchayat. The view taken by the Panchayat is that the land in question is a filled up paddy land and therefore, permission cannot be given in the absence of any order issued by the Government granting permission for the conversion of the land. 4. The Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit in the matter. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land purchased by the petitioner is already a converted land and cannot be termed as a paddy land, which is evident from the report of the Village Officer. It is submitted that the nature of the land being evident, the Panchayat should have W.P.(C)No.5553/10 -3- considered the said aspect alone while considering his application for building permit. Reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Praveen K. v. The Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2)KHC499(DB)) to contend that the description in the revenue records alone is not crucial while an issue like this is being considered. It is also submitted if the petitioner is called for a personal hearing in the matter, all these facts could have been apprised to the Panchayat. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat submitted that the Panchayat had requested the Revenue Divisional Officer as to whether sanction can be granted to the petitioner to construct the building and by Exhibit R1(b) letter, it was informed by the Revenue Divisional Officer that no permission has been granted by the Government for establishing the unit in the land in question. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Panchayat that the Panchayat had no other option, but to reject the application for building permit. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the petitioner has already moved the Revenue Divisional Officer for reclassification of the land and this Court in the W.P.(C)No.5553/10 -4- judgment in W.P.(C)No.7394/2010 has already directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to take a decision in the matter. It is submitted that the said application is one filed under Section 12 of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. It is submitted that orders are expected to be passed within a short time. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed that the Panchayat may be directed to reconsider the matter after affording the petitioner a personal hearing. 8. This is a case where the petitioner has already put all efforts to establish a new industrial unit by availing loan and permissions have been obtained from various authorities in the matter. Documents produced by the petitioner would show that the land is a converted one and is not remaining as a paddy land. The nature of the land at the time of issuing the order will have to be considered. It is clear that all efforts made by the petitioner will be wasted if permission is not granted for constructing the building. Therefore, what is required is the satisfaction whether the land is one which is remaining as a paddy land or a garden land/paramba. The petitioner prays that W.P.(C)No.5553/10 -5- if an opportunity is given to the petitioner, he will be able to convince the Panchayat in the matter. 9. Exhibit P9 proceedings show that the Panchayat has taken a decision against the petitioner in the light of the letter forwarded by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Panchayat that the Government has not passed any order granting permission to establish the unit in the property. Therefore, practically, the real question was not addressed by the Panchayat also. In that view of the matter Exhibit P9 is quashed. There will be a direction to the Panchayat to reconsider the matter in accordance with the relevant rules after hearing the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner can produce additional materials, if any, before the Panchayat, while the matter is being considered. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn