IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 20411 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUKUNDAN NAMBOODIRIPPAD, MUTHUKURUSI MANA, REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, M.A.AJAYA KUMAR, MUTHUKURUSI MANA, ELAMKULAM, PERINTHALMANNA. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, ELAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUNNAKKAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20411 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.14/2008-09 DATED 14.5.08 EXT.P2- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.2.09 EXT.P3- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.3.09 EXT.P4- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.3.08 EXT.P5- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 7.5.2009 EXT.P6- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RDO DATED 3.6.09 EXT.P7- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.6.09 FILED BEFORE THE PANCHAYATH EXT.R1(a)- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER DATED 9.11.07 EXT.R1(b)- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).16568/07 EXT.R1(c)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER DATED 14.5.09 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE mrcs ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).20411/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT According to the petitioner, by Ext.R1(a) order of the Land Revenue Commissioner, certain extent of land was permitted to be reclaimed in terms of the provisions under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. Subsequently, he obtained Ext.P1 building permit from the respondent Panchayat in May, 2008. However, Ext.P1 was cancelled by the Panchayat immediately thereafter. Cancellation of the permit, according to the petitioner, was for the reason that the area permitted to be reclaimed in Ext.R1(a) was not specified therein. It is stated that subsequently by Ext.P6 order, the Revenue Divisional Officer has clarified that ambiguity in Ext.R1(a) and therefore, the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 application before the Panchayat, requesting the Panchayat to restore Ext.P1 building permit in the light of Ext.P6. In this writ petition petitioner seeks an order requiring the Panchayat to consider Ext.P7 application. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat informs that in the light of Ext.R1(a) and in terms of the provisions of the Kerala W.P.(C).20411/09 2 Conservation of paddy and wetland Act, 2008, Ext.P6 order could not have been passed. He also submits that an appeal against Ext.P6 is pending before the Government. Although this contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not think that for the disposal of this writ petition, this Court need enter into the correctness of such controversies. Having regard to the limited nature of the relief sought for by the petitioner, viz., for the consideration of Ext.P7, I dispose of this writ petition directing the Panchayat to pass orders on Ext.P7 application with notice to the petitioner, in accordance with law. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs