Kerala High Court
Ottupara Konolil Krishnan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 9 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.10993 OF 2010(Y)
PETITIONER:
OTTUPARA KONOLIL KRISHNAN
S/O.CHARUKUTTY, KONOLIL HOUSE, VAKKALOOR,
KAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PERINTHALMANNA.
2 THE KAVANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KAVANOOR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
R1 & R3 BY SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE,SENIOR GOVERNMENT
PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.10993 of 2010
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2021
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner basically challenging
certain proceedings under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of
Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. On a perusal of the pleadings put
forth by the petitioner, it is quite clear and evident that the property of
the petitioner situated in R.S.No.50/3 of Kavanoor Village admeasuring 6
cents is a paddy field. It is also clear that when the permit was sought
for by the petitioner, Panchayat made a reference to the authorities
under the Act 2008 and the Local Level Monitoring Committee did not
grant permission to carry out the construction. Against which the
petitioner has presumably filed Ext.P4 appeal before the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna. A counter affidavit is filed by the 1 st
respondent stating that the 1st respondent is not a properly constituted
authority under the provisions of Act 2008 and respondent No.1 cannot
consider Ext.P4 appeal in terms of the provisions of Act 2008 or under
the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 or the Building Rules
applicable then.
2. Fact remains if the property is included in the data bank
constituted as per the provisions of Act 2008, necessarily the owner of
W.P.(C)No.10993 of 2010
the paddy field has to submit an application as per the provisions of Act
2008 to remove the same from the data bank. Admittedly that exercise
was not undertaken by the petitioner.
3. Therefore, today when the matter was taken up and having
realised the situation that the appeal is not a properly constituted one
and the relief sought for in the writ petition is only early disposal of the
appeal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the situation,
would suffice if the writ petition is closed leaving open the liberty of the
petitioner to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee seeking
removal of the property from the data bank.
In that view of the matter this writ petition is disposed of recording
that petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Local Level Monitoring
Committee concerned to remove the property in question from the data
bank constituted as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of
Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
Sd/-
Shaji P.Chaly
Judge
vpv
W.P.(C)No.10993 of 2010
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 15.5.2009 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER FOR BUILDING PERMIT TO THE SECOND
RESPONDENT DATED 9.1.2009.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE
PETITIONER FROM THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED
7.5.2009.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED
18.5.2009.
/true copy/
P.A. to Judge
