IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 17924 of 2010(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THOMAS.C.K., S/O.KUNJHIPALI, AGED 62 YRS, PARAKKADAN HOUSE, ANNAMANADA P.O., KALLUR-THEKKUMURY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. ANNAMANADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY SECRETARY, (SPECIAL GRADE), ANNAMANADA P.O., THRISSUR. 2. CONVENOR (AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, ANNAMANADA P.O), LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT, KRISHI BHAVAN, ANNAMANADA P.O., TRISSUR DT. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLUR-THEKKUMURY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. SHAJIN.N.V, NADAMURI HOUSE, PUTHANCHIRA, KOMBATHKADAVU P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680 682. R1 BY ADV. SRI.FRANCO T.J, R4 BY SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SRI.JIBU P THOMAS, SRI.P.S.APPU, SRI.C.A.ANOOP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.17924/2010-M: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT DTD. 27/12/08 HAVING NO:5039/08 OF SRO ANNAMANADA EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF R.4. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT DTD. 14/05/09 SUBMITTED BY THE R.4. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD. 21/05/09 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE R.4. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE SITE VERIFICATION REPORT DTD. 17/06/09 SUBMITTED BY THE OVERSEER LSGD TO PANCHAYATH. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DTD. 16/07/09 ISSUED BY TH R.1. IN A3-71/09- 10 TO THE R.4. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 26/04/10 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF BTR COVERED BY SY.NO.851/I OF KALLUR THEKKUMURY VILLAGE DTD. NIL. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE POSSESSION AND NON-ATTCHMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R.3. DTD. NIL. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE R.3. DTD. 25/02/2010. EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION LETTER OF THE R.3. DTD. 17/06/2009. EXT.R4.D: COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION LETTER OF THE R.2. DTD. 20/06/2009. EXT.R4.E: COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DULY AUTHENTICATED BY THE ARCHITECTS DTD. 18/04/2011. EXT.R4.F: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO THE R.1. DTD. 18/04/2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.17924 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the owner in possession of 9 cents of paddy and wet land comprised in Sy.No.851/I of Kallur-Thekkumury village filed this Writ Petition raising grievance against the construction effected by the fourth respondent. Essentially, the contention is that the fourth respondent is effecting construction on the strength of Ext.P5 building permit without obtaining proper consent under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent in this Writ Petition. Along with the counter affidavit, the fourth respondent has produced Exts.R4(c) and R4(d). Ext.R4(c) dated 17.6.2009 is the recommendation letter issued by the third respondent and Ext.R4(d) is the recommendation of the second respondent dated 20.6.2009. In fact, the fourth respondent has stated that the building permit was granted to him as per Ext.P5 based on Exts.R4(c) and R4(d). Ext.R4(c) and R4(d) would reveal that coconut trees having thirty years old are seen in the property W.P.(C) NO.17924/2010 2 which is now lying as a dry land. Ext.R4(e) would reveal that the construction of the building in the aforesaid property was already completed and subsequently, the 4th respondent has submitted Ext.R4(f) application as well, for getting allotment of the building number and also occupancy certificate. It is thus obvious that the fourth respondent was granted building permit taking note of the recommendations in Exts.R4(c) and R4(d). Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the fourth respondent is engaged in the construction of the building based on Ext.P5 without obtaining proper consent from the competent authorities under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. As already noticed, the construction is already completed. In the light of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Praveen K. v. Land Revenue Commissioner reported in 2010(2) KLT 617, the decision of the authorities in granting building permit cannot be held as illegal warranting interference. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is liable to fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.17924/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.17924/2010 4