IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 25117 of 2009(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : ---------------------- GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. VILASINI AMMA, KOTTANCHERY HOUSE, KIDANGOOR DESOM, POST MARATHAMCODE, VIA KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 3. CHOWANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT P.O.CHOWANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. P. MAYA R3 BY ADVS. SRI. SANTHEEP ANKARATH SMT. P. JAYALAKSHMI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING : NS W.P.C. NO. 25117/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.7451/94/D1 DATED 29.06.1995 CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D2 20/2000 DATED 2.01.2001 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2(a) : COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AFTER RECLAIMING THE LAND PURSUANCE TO EXT.P1. P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 256/08 DATED 26.04.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETIOTIONER. P4 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITONER DATED 09.01.2008 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C1.3700/08 DATED 22.02.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR OF THALAPPILLY TALUK TO THE RESPONDENT. P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D1-4347/08/K.DIS DATED 23.04.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 04.09.2008 IN WPC NO. 13868/08. P8 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.15043/08(1)/D1 DATED 25.06.09 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE NS HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 25117 OF 2009 ------------------------------- DATED THIS 9TH THE DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts. P6 and P8 orders passed by the 2nd respondent, for a direction commanding the 3rd respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner for construction of a residential building and commanding the respondents to grant permission to construct a residential building in accordance with the approved plan. 2. Petitioner owns and possesses 22 cents of land in R.S.No.400/5 of Chowanoor Grama Panchayat. The property was originally paddy field. For the purpose of constructing a shop room, the petitioner applied for permission to reclaim the land under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur. The Revenue Divisional Officer as per order dated 29/6/1995 granted permission to the petitioner to fill up the paddy field for the purpose of constructing a building. -2- W.P.(C).No.25117/2009 Petitioner submits that after Ext.P1 order, the land was reclaimed and he had constructed shop rooms. Ext.P2 is the copy of the certificate issued by the Panchayat certifying that the Panchayat has no objection in the petitioner for constructing any building in the property owned by him. Petitioner submits that the construction was made after reclaiming the land. Subsequently, the petitioner sold 8 cents of land out of 22 cents on account of financial difficulties and that at present he is in possession of 14 cents of land. Ext.P2(a) is the photographs produced showing the nature of the property, after reclamation. 3. It is submitted that he constructed a residential house in the very same property, which was reclaimed as per Ext.P1. The application for permission was rejected by the Panchayat stating that the title deed of the petitioner shows that the land is a paddy field. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the Panchayat on 26/4/2008. 4. Since the Panchayat had refused permission for construction of a building stating that the land is a paddy field, the -3- W.P.(C).No.25117/2009 petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for grant of permission to construct a residential building. True copy of the petition dated 9/1/2008 is marked as Ext.P4. It is submitted that in fact the application was submitted erroneously and that the 2nd respondent is an authority to grant permission to construct a residential building. The 2nd respondent called for the report of the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar submitted a report before the 2nd respondent wherein he has stated that the permission under the Kerala Lane Utilisation order has already been granted and there is no need for grant of further permission with respect to the property. A copy of the report submitted by the Tahsildar to the Revenue Divisional Officer is marked as Ext.P5. Challenging Ext.P3 order rejecting the application, the petitioner filed W.P.(C).No.13868/2008. While so, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P6 order dated 23/4/2008 wherein he has rejected the claim of the petitioner. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by Ext.P7 judgment directing the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent seeking review of Ext.P3 order. -4- W.P.(C).No.25117/2009 Subsequently, the 2nd respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner by Ext.P8 order. Petitioner submits that Exts.P6 and P8 order were passed by the 2nd respondent without application of mind. By Ext.P1 order the 2nd respondent has already granted sanction for converting the paddy field for the purpose of construction of a building. Ext.P2(a) photograps also show that the property was reclaimed. The nature of the property shows that it is not fit for paddy cultivation. From the materials on record, it is clear that Exts.P6 and P8 orders were passed based on the wrong assumption. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that Ext.P6 and P8 orders have to be quashed. By Ext.P1 order dated 29/6/1995 the Revenue Divisional Officer granted permission for conversion of the paddy field. Ext.P2(a) photographs shows that the petitioner had constructed a commercial building in his property, after reclamation. In the circumstances, the denial of granting permission to construct a residential building for the reason stated in Ext.P3 cannot stand. The nature of the -5- W.P.(C).No.25117/2009 property recorded as 'Nilam' in the revenue records is not a ground for rejecting the application for permission to construct a residential building in the reclaimed land. It is pointed out that the property reclaimed by the petitioner is a dry land and the conversion was done pursuant to Ext.P1 order during 1995. In the aforesaid circumstances, Ext.P6 and P8 orders are quashed. A direction is issued to the 3rd respondent to grant permission/no objection certificate for constructing a residential building without reference to the reasons stated in Ext.P3 order, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv. -6- W.P.(C).No.25117/2009