IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9400 of 2008(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MRS.SAVITHRI.M., `YADAVAM' HOUSE, PARAKADAVU, ANKAMALI, KIDANGOOR. BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND K.BHARATHAN (SR.) SRI.C.P.KUNJHIKANNAN SMT.SREEKALA KRISHNADAS SRI.S.K.MADHU RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. 4. THE SECRETARY, PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KURUMASSERY P.O., MOOZHIKKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. PARAKKADAVU-POOVATHUSSERY PADASEKHARA NELLULPADAKA SAMITHY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAKKADAVU POST NO.683 579. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY FOR R5 SRI.R.VINOD FOR R5 SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM FOR R5 SRI.K.N.KUMARASWAMY SARMA FOR R5 SRI.O.D.SIVADAS FOR R4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = =============== W.P.(C) NO. 9400 of 2008-R ==================== Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P8. There is a further prayer to direct the 4th respondent to number the building on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner on 18.6.2007. 2. Petitioner submits that by Ext. P1 document of title she has acquired ownership over 1.27 acres of land the details of which are given in the schedule to the said document. According to the petitioner her predecessor wanted to put up a shed in the property and had made an application to the Panchayat for obtaining their permit. Based on his application, the Panchayat issued Ext. P2 certificate to the effect that the Building Rules were not applicable and that her predecessor could go ahead with the construction. Petitioner states that on the basis of Ext. P2, construction of a shed was completed, and on an application made, the same was inspected by the Panchayat and accordingly the shed was numbered as X 481G on 18.11.2006. Ext. P3 is the property tax receipt confirming payment of the tax in respect of the said shed. 3. On the petitioner acquiring title of the property, petitioner submits that she also constructed a residential building and long WPC No. 9400/08 :2 : thereafter, she was issued Ext. P5 on 31.7.2007, followed by Ext. P4 on 10.9.2007. While in Ext. P5 it is alleged that she was reclaiming the land, in Ext. P4 it was stated that since the construction was in a land reclaimed, the Panchayat was unable to assign number to the building. On receipt of Exts. P4 and P5 petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application to the Revenue Divisional Officer and that was declined to be considered by the said officer. It is stated that by Ext. P8, petitioner was informed by the Revenue Divisional Officer that in view of the proposal of the Government to introduce a legislation modifying the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the RDO was not in a position to consider Ext. P7. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed. 4. This Court by its order dated 19.3.2008 directed the petitioner to produce the recent photographs of the property and the building in order to have an assessment of the ground realities and Ext.P12 series are the photographs produced. These photographs, the genuineness of which is not under challenge, show that there is a building that is constructed by the petitioner in a garden land which is fully developed with yielding coconut trees, plantations, etc. It is also seen that much bigger and larger buildings are already there in the neighbourhood of the petitioner. 5. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed counter affidavits. WPC No. 9400/08 :3 : 6. According to the 4trh respondent Panchayat, petitioner had trespassed into a portion of the Padasekharam belonging to the 5th respondent, reclaimed a portion of the land and constructed a compound wall annexing portion of the Government land also. According to them, the aforesaid trespassed area is liable to be recovered from the petitioner. Counsel for the Panchayat also submits that on account of the above, the flow in the water channel to the padasekharam is blocked and there is wide resentment prevailing in the area. The learned counsel for the Panchayat concedes that the building has been constructed and his complaint is not essentially against the building but is more against the alleged tresspass. The 5th respondent's contentions are more or less the same as that of the 4th respondent. 7. In this writ petition all that this court is concerned is the claim of the petitioner for numbering the building. This request of the petitioner was turned down for the only reason that the land where the building is constructed is a paddy field. This factual position of the land and its surroundings is reflected in Ext. P12 photographs, the correctness of which is not disputed by either of the parties. The property is also described as land and not nilam in Ext. P1 document. Further the complaint of the Panchayat is more about the alleged tresspass than abort the building. In WPC No. 9400/08 :4 : view of all these, there cannot be any justification for declining to number the building on the wrong premise that the land is a paddy field. Therefore, I direct that the building of the petitioner shall be numbered by the Panchayat, expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 8. As already noticed, the complaint of respondents 4 and 5 seems to be more about the alleged trespass committed by the petitioner. Since that is not the subject matter of this writ petition, I am not called upon to pronounce on the same. If at all there is any trespass committed by the petitioner it is always open to the respondents to take appropriate action in the matter as is permissible in law and this judgment will not stand in their way. 9. In view of the above directions, since Ext.P8 has become inconsequential, it is not necessary to deal with the prayer made by the petitioner to quash Ext. P8. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Jan/-