IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20526 of 2008(R) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- E.C. CHERIYAN, INCHIKALAYIL HOUSE, (KUNNATH), THELLAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM -16. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE), ATHIRAMPUZHA 686 562., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS,SC,ATHIRAMPUZHA G.PAN – R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR – R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20526/2008 R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF LETTER OF PANCHAYAT DTD. 22/11/2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT DTD. 14/12/2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF APPROVED PLAN DTD. 14/12/2005. EXT.P4: COPY OF RECEIPT FOR THE PROPERTIES TAX IN SY.NOS.570/7, 570/4-3, 567/8 AND 567/9. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PHOTO OF THE ELAVATION OF THE BUILDING WITH THE ADJACENT BUILDING. EXT.P6: COPY OF ILLEGIBLE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT RECEIVED FROM R.D.O.'S OFFICE. EXT.P7: COPY OF REPORT CONCERNING MR. P.B.SURESH APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DTD.27/05/2008. EXT.P8: COPY OF REPORT APPEARED IN DESHABHIMANI DTD. 27/05/2008. EXT.P9: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 29/05/2008 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 25/06/2008 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 20526 OF 2008 R = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P9 communication issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam to the respondent Panchayat not to assign number to the building constructed by the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition. The premise on which Ext. P9 is issued is that the building has been constructed by the petitioner, in a land which was reclaimed. This implies that the allegation is that the petitioner has violated the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. A reading of Ext. P9 itself shows that the land in question has been reclaimed long in the past. Panchayat also confirms this position. If that be so, for the only reason that sometime in the past the land was a paddy field there is no justification to decline the numbering of the building of the petitioner. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the view taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer in Ext. P9. Accordingly Ext. P9 will W.P.(C) No. 20526 OF 2008 -2- stand quashed and the Panchayat shall consider the application made by the petitioner for numbering the building on its merits and pass appropriate orders within 2 weeks. 2. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent Panchayat for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-