IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15511 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUNJUKUNJAMMA JACOB,W/O.K.A.CHACKO, K.A.C.RUBBERS,KONTHIAPARMBIL, RAMANAKARY P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAMANKARY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,RAMANKARY P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,RAMANKARY, RAMANKARY P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE THASILDAR,KUTTANAD TALUK, TALUK OFFICE,KUTTANAD. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,ALAPPUZHA. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUNJA SECTION,KSEB,KIDANGARA,ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R5 ADV. SRI MATHEW VADAKKEL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15511 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleaders for respondent 2 to 4 and the learned standing counsel for the 5th respondent. Notice to the first respondent is dispensed with preserving the right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2. The petitioner an entrepreneur, states that the expansion her establishment requires a larger of land lying adjacent to the holding utilized at present. She sought for clearance to covert a piece of land in terms of the Kerala Land Utilization Order or the legislation which govern the field of conversion of paddy fields and wet land. In 2005, the committee considered the matter under the KLU order and decided that the petitioner's application for conversion could be allowed in terms of what is stated in Para 5 of Ext.P6. It appears that in anticipation of the order that would be issued on the basis of that decision the petitioner made a construction and W.P.(C) No.15511 OF 2009 2 approached the first respondent Panchayath for approval. That has been refused as per Ext.P8, on the sole ground that the second respondent , Village Officer has reported that the land is one which was a paddy field and was converted. Such conversion does not by itself become illegal. The competent committee had granted permission as per ExtP6 decisions. Therefore unless there is a superior decision vacating the contents of the 5th paragraph of Ext.P6, that has to be followed. Therefore the impugned Ext.P8 issued solely on the basis of the report of the Village Officer that the land is a converted paddy field does not stand on the face of Ext.P6. The situation could not have improved even if the matter would fall under the legislation now governing the field of conversion of paddy field and wet lands. For the aforesaid reasons I am satisfied that Ext.P8 is liable to be set aside enabling the first respondent to hear the petitioner again and issue a fresh decision stating more specific reasons if the ground stated in Ext.P8 is still insisted upon. Because, if the decision is against the petitioner, she will had a right to statutory appeal before the competent authority. W.P.(C) No.15511 OF 2009 3 In the result Ext.P8 is quashed and the first respondent is directed to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and decide on the issue de-novo within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and a copy of this writ petition. Since the petitioner has applied for an ownership certificate, the first respondent will consider issuing such a certificate provisionally, pending final decision in the matter directed above. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge jma/12.6