IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7419 of 2008(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHABEER ABDUL KHADER, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.PATHAKKALAN ABDUL KHADER HAJI 'WHITE CASTE' (PO) KAKKAD, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THALASSERY 2. THE VENGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH KAITHERIPPOYYIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 3. THE SECRETARY VENGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KAITHERIPPOYYIL KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN ,VENGAD, PATHIRIYAD, (PO),KANNUR 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER PADUVILAI,KANNUR. R2-R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN R1, R4 & R5 BY SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.K.BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.7419 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 19th March, 2008 JUDGMENT It appears to me that the petitioner is voicing a genuine grievance. The petitioner who is the owner of a total extent of 53 cents of land by virtue of Exts.P1 to P3 documents. The properties are described in the documents as chira and reclaimed parambas. Earlier the petitioner constructed buildings on portions of those properties and those buildings were numbered without any objection by the local authority. But when a commercial building has been constructed by the petitioner,the local authority is refusing to assign door numbers in view of Ext.P10 order issued by the R.D.O. Ext.P5 is the notice issued by the petitioner in this regard. Under Ext.P5, the petitioner was directed to produce permit from the R.D.O. under the Land Utilisation Order and when the R.D.O. was approached, permit was declined on the reason that Kerala Conservation of Paddy Fields and Wet Lands Bill, 2007 has been introduced on the floor of the Assembly on 19.9.2007 and the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department had issued letter dated 17.11.2007 directed the R.D.O. not to grant permits in applications which are received after 19.9.2007. No statement or counter affidavit has been filed in this W.P.C.No.7419/08 - 2 - case. The application seeking permit was submitted to the Panchayat long prior to the introduction of the bill in question in the Assembly. Concededly, the Bill has not so far assented to by the Governor and has not become an enactment. I am convinced on a perusal of the title documents and the photographs produced by the petitioner that the petitioner's plot was reclaimed at least 40 years ago and is no longer paddy field. In fact reports in this regard have been submitted by the Village Officer also. It is not disputed that buildings which were earlier constructed by the petitioner on other portions of the plot were numbered by the Panchayat. Under these circumstances, I feel that it is not just on the part of the Panchayat to refuse to number the petitioner's building on the reason that permit is not issued by the 1st respondent under the Land Utilisation Order. Accordingly, I dispose of the Writ Petition directing respondents 2 and 3 to assign door numbers to the buildings constructed by the petitioner and which are subject matter of the present Writ Petition at the earliest and at any rate within one month of receiving copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this judgment does not stand in the way of the 1st respondent initiating any proceedings against the petitioner under the Land Utilisation Order, in which case all available defences W.P.C.No.7419/08 - 3 - including the defence that the property was converted as dry land decades before, can be taken as a ground by the petitioner. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE