IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 1487 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KANNICHI PRADEEPAN, "THRISHA NIVAS" P.O. PATHIRIYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VENGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.PATHIRIYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SECRETARY, VENGAD GRMA PANCHAYATH, PO PATHIRIYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY. ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN FOR R1,2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.1487/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE TITLE DEED DT 21.5.1993 P2 COPY OF THE STATEMETN DT 27.6.2007 P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 5.10.2007 P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DT 8.1.2008 P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DT 20.4.2009 P6 COPY OF THE REPORT DT 28.3.2009 P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DT 4.6.2009 P8 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER'S DWELLING HOUSE. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 1487 of 2010 I ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Relief sought in the writ petition is to quash Exts.P3, P5 and P7. According to the petitioner, he started construction of a dwelling house in his property in Survey No.7/2 of Paduvilayi village, which is situated in the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent Panchayat. Soon after construction was started, Ext.P3 communication was issued by the 2nd respondent, informing that the land is a reclaimed land and therefore the work shall not be continued without obtaining order of the RDO. It is seen that the Revenue Divisional Officer, who was moved, rejected the request, by Ext.P5. Ext.P7 is another communication issued by the 2nd respondent, stating that the local level committee also is satisfied that the land is a reclaimed land and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue the construction. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. However, from the impugned orders itself and Ext.P6 report of the Village Officer of the area, it is clear that the land is WPC.1487/2010 : 2 : fully developed garden land. It is also obvious that there are yielding coconut trees and that there are similar cultivation in the neighbouring properties also. Therefore, in my view, Exts.P3, P5 and P7 is against the ground realities and therefore cannot be sustained. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of quashing Exts.P3, P5 and P7 and directing that the petitioner will be permitted to continue the construction of the dwelling house on the basis of the permit obtained by him. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge