IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 289 of 2009 ------ -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.26653/2008 Dated 07/10/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ MOOSAKUTTY, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 53 YEARS, KOZHIKKATTIL HOUSE, KODAKARA P.O., KODAKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. KODAKARA GRAMAPANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF KODAKARA GRAMAPANCHAYAT, KODAKARA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680 684. 2. THE SECRETARY, KODAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 684. ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy, Ag.C.J. & P.Bhavadasan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No. 289 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT J.B.Koshy, Ag.C.J. The appellant challenges Ext.P2 order whereby his application for building permit had been rejected for want of sanction under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The respondents took the stand that in the original document his property is mentioned as paddy land. Appellant asserts that his property is a dry land and there are subsequent documents in which it is mentioned as dry land and that it was never cultivated with paddy. Appellant also submitted that there are decisions to the effect that position of the land at the time when Land Utilization Order is issued has to be considered. Appellant also cited Exts.P4 and P5 judgments in similar circumstances passed by this Court. 2. However, the learned Single Judge did not exercise his discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and directed the appellant to file a statutory appeal before the Tribunal. In view of the alternative remedy and once the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to avail the alternative remedy, it is not W.A.No.289 of 2009 2 proper for us to interfere with the matter as the direction of the court is not illegal. There are factual disputes also. 3. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. However, the matter was pending in this Court from September 2008 and we feel if an appeal is filed against Ext.P2 order within three weeks from today, that should be considered by the Tribunal according to law on merit without considering the question of time bar. All the contentions of the appellant can be raised before the Tribunal and we are not expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the case. Writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. J.B.Koshy, (Ag. Chief Justice) P.Bhavadasan, (Judge) vns