IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 33123 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- SMT.NIRMALA RAJAN, W/O.RAJAN VARGHESE, AGED 55 YEARS, DIRECTOR, ST.MARY'S CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, PANAKKAMATTATHIL, PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS RESPONDENT: --------------- NATTAKAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MARIYAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 023. BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33123 of 2010(M) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXT.P1. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04.01.2010 MADE BY THE VICE CHAIRMAN, ST.MARY'S CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NATTAKAM FOR REGULARIZATION OF THE BUILDING CONSTRUTED BY IT. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.25597 OF 2010 DATED 16.08.2010. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2010 PASSED BY THE NATTAKAM . EXT.P4. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERYT AND THE BUILDING. EXT.P4(A). PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY AND THE BUILDING. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.10121/2010 DATED 07.04.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 33123 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Director of St.Mary's Christian Educational Society which owns 1.60 acres of land within the local limits of Nattakam Village. With a view to start an Engineering College in that parcel of land, the society applied for and obtained a building permit from the respondent Panchayat. The building was also constructed. But an Engineering College could not be started for the reason that the Mahatma Gandhi University did not grant affiliation. After the construction of the building was completed, the petitioner moved the Secretary of the local authority to number the building by submitting Ext.P1 application. When that application was not processed, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.25597 of 2010 in this Court. By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 16.8.2010, a learned single Judge of this Court directed the local authority to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 application within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary of the respondent Panchayat issued Ext.P3 letter dated 8.10.2010 informing the petitioner that as the land where the WPC No.33123/2010 2 building is put up is described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records, the building cannot be numbered. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Relying on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009 (3) KLT 899) the petitioner contends that the land where the building is situated is not paddy land within the meaning of the said term occurring in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and that the request made by the petitioner to number the building has been illegally rejected. It is also stated that when the building was put up, the Kerala Municipality Building Rules were not made applicable to the Panchayat and that even going by the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, the construction is in order. 3. I heard Sri. Tom K.Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Siby Mathew, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. It is evident from the materials on record that the land where the petitioner has put up the building is not paddy land, where paddy was cultivated in the recent past. Ext.P4 series of photographs show that the land where the WPC No.33123/2010 3 building is situated is garden land. The western boundary of the property owned by the society is the Main Central road and buildings exist on the other three sides. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the site where the building was put up way back in the year 2001 was a paddy land as on the date of commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Act, 2008. It has therefore to be held that the decision taken by the respondent, evidenced by Ext.P3, cannot be sustained. In the result, I allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P3 and direct the Secretary of the respondent Grama Panchayat to consider Ext.P1 application and to number the building expeditiously and in any event within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.33123/2010 4 WPC No.33123/2010 5