IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 23473 of 2009(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.K.RAJEEV, AGED 41 YEARS, SON OF KUNJUKUNJU, VELLOOR HOUSE, KUDAVACHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 144. BY ADVS. MR.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN, MR.T.S.HARIKUMAR, MR.K.JAGADEESH. RESPONDENT: --------------------- VECHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUDAVECHOOR P.O., VAIKOM (VIA), KOTTAYAM-686 144, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. MR.M.A.ASIF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.23473/2009-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE, DTD. 27TH DECEMBER 2003. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NO-OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DTD. 23/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VECHOOR, DTD. 23/03/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM, DTD. 12/03/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NO-OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD. 27/12/2003. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-747/09, DTD. 04/08/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.16809/2008 DTD 23RD JUNE, 2008. EXT.P.8: SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE CENCELLATION INTIMATION NO. 237/08 DTD. 28/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VECHOOR. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 2813/09 DTD. 29/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VECHOOR. EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 27/07/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 31/07/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 23473 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner obtained Ext.P5 No Objection Certificate and is stated to have carried out a construction. His application for numbering the building has been refused as per Ext.P6 by stating that the land is a wet land. While he relies on Ext.P3 and P4, the respondent panchayat, through counter affidavit and Ext.R1(b) states that Ext.P3 is one obtained by fraud and Ext.R1(b) evidences that the land in question is actually wet land. I may also note that Ext.P3, though is issued by the Village Officer, Ext.P4 is issued by the Tahsildar showing that land is dry land. Is it that fraud has been practised by the Village Officer or the Tahsildar or the petitioner or by all the three ? The reply affidavit of the petitioner stands to assert that the nature of the land is not paddy land. He has produced Ext.P8 photographs to show the nature of the construction. 2. With the aforesaid materials, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this court in Shahanaz Wpc 23473/2009 2 Shukkoor V. Chelannur Grama Panchayat(2009(3) KLT 889) and argued that the mere description of an item of land as nilam in the revenue records is insufficient to conclude that the land is wet land. That argument is sustainable. It has also been laid down in the said precedent that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 deals with conversion of lands which are paddy fields or wet lands on the basis of actual fact situation and not depending upon the description of the property in the revenue records. Reference was made to the definition of paddy field and wet land in that Act to hold that the said statute operates on the basis of the facts as they exist, on ground realities and not on quality or type of land depending upon its description in title document. It was held that on the facts and materials of that case it was proved to the satisfaction of this court that the immediately surrounding lands and the land in issue in that case have buildings standing therein and that this court was satisfied that the mere description of the land as nilam (paddy field) was not decisive. 3. In so far as the case in hand is concerned, a perusal of Ext.P8 photographs show that the building has been constructed; Wpc 23473/2009 3 it has been tiled. The nature of the land as available from the photographs by itself may not be conclusive. No other land mark in the location could be seen from that photograph. More importantly, the panchayat, which is the statutory authority, stands to assert that the revenue authorities themselves have certified that Ext.P3 is one not worthy of credence. With Ext.R1 (b) being issued by the Village Officer, the question posed above as to who were participus criminus in the fraud, still linkers. In the first round, the Village Officer certifies that the land is dry land. The Tahsildar certifies that the land is dry land. He did so for the purpose of the petitioner to produce it before KSIDC. With the passage of time, Village Officer again certifies that the land is wet land. In this situation, the writ court may not stand advised to enter on any particular finding regarding the nature of the land, to exclude the requirement of proceedings either under statute referred to above or otherwise. Therefore, while refusing to interfere with the impugned decision and leaving the petitioner to work out his remedies before the statutory authority including the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, the panchayat is directed to place a copy of this judgment before the Wpc 23473/2009 4 District Collector, Kottayam, having regard to the conflict of certificates issued by the Village Officer. All issues on merits will stand left open. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/16/9