IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 10926 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.C.V.MUHAMMED, AGED 62, S/O.PATHUMMA, CHENOTH CHOYICHI VALAPPIL, VADAKKUMBAD P.O., RAMANTHALI, PAYYANNUR. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REP.BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY REP.BY SECRETARY, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3/ 12 /2010 , THE COURT ON 03/12/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 10926 of 2009(I) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DEPT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.E1.2866/09 DATED 27.2.09. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO.69655/R.A.1/08/LOCAL SELF GOVT. DATED 23.9.08. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE APPLICAITION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED25.3.09. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.R2(A). COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY. / TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE VK T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.10926 Of 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the reply given by the Municipality as per Exhibit P2 that building permit cannot be issued for a poultry farm, this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the Municipality and the learned Government Pleader. 3. Evidently, Exhibit P2 reply is given based on Exhibit P3 circular issued by the Government. The idea behind Exhibit P3 is that the paddy land which even though described as such in the document, but has been converted long back can be allowed to be used for constructing residential houses. The use for other purposes are not mentioned therein. It is the case of the Municipality that the plot in question is a paddy land which is stoutly disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to him, the mere description of the property as paddy land in the title deeds will not be conclusive especially in the light of the decision of this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009(3) KLT 899). 4. It is not evident from Exhibit P2 whether the Municipality has conducted any inspection. The learned counsel for the petitioner W.P.(C)No.10926/09 -2- asserted that a local inspection will show that there is no paddy cultivation in the area and the property has been remaining as a 'paramba'. 5. Under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the Local Level Monitoring Committee will have to conduct an inspection to ascertain whether the land could be cultivated or not and could be utilised for construction purposes. Therefore the Committee will have to arrive at a decision as provided by the provisions of the said Act and the Rules. 6. For enabling the petitioner to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee, Exhibit P2 will stand set aside. The petitioner will file appropriate representation before the concerned authority, who will go into the details of the matter and submit a report, based on which the petitioner will move the Municipality afresh for permit. Appropriate action will be finalised expeditiously. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. ) dsn