IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27681 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.MANI, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN, POOVAKKOTTIL HOUSE, CHENANKAD POST, KOTTAYI VILLAGE, PALGHAT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SRECRETARY, KOTTAYI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYI VILLAGE, PALGHAT DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.27681 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.Notice to the respondent dispensed with, preserving its right for re-hearing of the matter, if aggrieved by the order being issued hereunder. 2.The respondent took action in relation to what it called as unauthorised construction and which the petitioner calls as a temporary shed, for which, he seeks regularisation. It appears that the matter went up to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and stood remitted for re- consideration. The grievance of the petitioner, as pointed out now, is that he did not get sufficient opportunity to place the entire materials before the respondent since the file was pending with his Advocate who was appearing before the Tribunal. Fundamentally, his plea is that the question whether the land over which the structure stands is “nilam” (paddy field) or not has to be decided on the basis of ground realities WPC.27681/09 Page numbers as they exist, rather than on the entries in the revenue records or the documents. He relies on judgments of this Court in that regard. The totality of the facts and circumstances disclose that if the petitioner is given an opportunity, he should be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the respondent that the construction is not illegal. Otherwise, he may have to face the consequences in terms of law. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is ordered directing that the impugned proceedings against the petitioner will stand suspended to enable him to produce further materials before the respondent within a period of four weeks from now and the petitioner will be heard again by the respondent and the matter decided untrammelled by any final decision already taken. The petitioner would also be entitled to rely on Ext.P4 representation. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.3/10.