IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 14058 of 2010(F) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M.A.NAZAR,S/O.MOHAMMED SAHIB,AGED 45, THAJ MANSION,KUZALMANNAM P.O,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,PALAKKAD. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE,PALAKKAD. 3. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER,PALAKKAD. 4. THE KUZALMANNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.14058/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 6.3.2006 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 19.6.2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 21.12.2009 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD. 12.1.2010 OF THE KUZALMANNAM PANCHAYATH. P5:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 18.1.2010. P6:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 1.2.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 12.3.2010 ISSUEDBY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 14058 of 2010 F ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 1st day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of a property situated in Survey No.504 of Kuzhalmannam village having an extent of 15 cents. In respect of the property, for the construction of a commercial building, petitioner made an application for conversion as provided in the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. His application was considered and accordingly, Ext.P1 order was passed. Subsequently, petitioner changed his plan and decided to construct a paper board manufacturing factory. It is stated that, for revision of the building permit, petitioner made an application to the Panchayat, which was forwarded by the fourth respondent Panchayat to the District Town Planner. On receipt of the proceedings, the District Town Planner, by Ext.P7, required the petitioner to obtain clearance under the Conservation of Paddy Fields and Wet Land Act, 2008. Ext.P7 is under challenge in this writ petition. WPC.14058/10 : 2 : 2. The only question raised for consideration is whether the new Act, i.e., 2008 Act, will nullify the effect of Ext.P1 order obtained by the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. This contention of the petitioner seems to be fully covered in his favour by judgment of this Court in Mohanan Vs. R.D.O. [2010 (3) KLT 67], wherein it was held that the 2008 Act will not nullify the proceedings under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Therefore, so long as Ext.P1 issued under the provisions of Kerala Land Utilisation Order remains in force, no fresh order under the 2008 Act is necessary. 3. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P7 and direct that the third respondent will consider the application forwarded by the fourth respondent. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks