Kerala High Court
Mohanan K.V vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 2ND VAISAKHA, 1944
RP NO. 698 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9646/2021 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER:
MOHANAN K.V.
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, KOTTOLATH VALAPPIL HOUSE,
YOGALA KANNAPURAM P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 301.
BY ADV BIJU.P.N.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 CHEMBIOLODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT
OFFICE, CHEMBILODE, MOWANCHERY POST, KANNUR
DISTRICT - 670 613.
3 THE SECRETARY, CHEMBILODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT
GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, CHEMBILODE, MOWANCHERY
POST, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 613.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
CHEMBILODE VILLAGE OFFICE,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 613.
BY ADVS.
R.RAJPRADEEP
BRIJESH MOHAN
SMT. PARVATHY KOTTOL, GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
RP.698/2021
:2:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
R.P. No.698 of 2021
in
W.P.(C) No.9646 of 2021
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2022
ORDER
~~~~~~
The petitioner in WP(C) No.9646 of 2021 has filed
this Review Petition seeking review of the judgment dated
06.09.2021 in the writ petition.
2. The petitioner purchased 19.52 Ares of land on
17.04.2015 along with a Building Permit to construct 1095.78
Square metres of commercial building. The Building Permit
was transferred by the Panchayat in the name of the
petitioner and was renewed from 08.03.2019 to 16.05.2021.
The petitioner constructed only 488.93 square metres and
applied for Occupancy Certificate.
RP.698/2021
3. The Panchayat took a stand that the application
submitted by the petitioner is for a new building permit and in
view of the fact that the land is described as Nilam in BTR
and in view of the provisions contained in the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the
petitioner has to change the nature of the land in revenue
records before consideration of the application for Building
Permit / Occupancy Certificate.
4. The writ petition was thereupon disposed of by
judgment dated 06.09.2021 with the following directions:
In such circumstances, the writ petition is
disposed of permitting the petitioner to apply for
making necessary changes in the Basic Tax
Register and Revenue records in accordance with
the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation
of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the
Rules made thereunder. After effecting necessary
changes in the Revenue records, the petitioner
may seek Occupancy Certificate from the 3rd
respondent and regularisation of the construction, if
the petitioner is so advised.
The review petitioner submits that there is error apparent on
the face of the judgment.
RP.698/2021
5. The writ petitioner/review petitioner states that the
petitioner has not made any application for a new building
permit. He has submitted only an application for
regularisation of construction. Change in the nature of the
land in revenue records is legally warranted only in respect of
new Building Permit applications submitted after the
amendments to the Act, 2008 effected on 13.08.2018. The
finding of this Court that the application submitted by the
petitioner was for a new Building Permit is erroneous and
consequently, the direction given by this Court is
unsustainable.
6. The respondent-Panchayat has produced
Annexure-R2(a) application submitted by the petitioner.
Annexure-R2(a) application has a title " Application for
Building Permit / Regularisation". In Clause No.13 against
the column "If the application is for regularisation", the
petitioner has given answer as "Yes". Therefore, it is evident
that Annexure-R2(a) application submitted by the petitioner
was for regularisation of building construction. In the
RP.698/2021
absence of Annexure-R2(a) copy of the application submitted
by the petitioner, this Court proceeded in the writ petition as if
the application submitted by the petitioner is for a new
Building Permit. To that extent, there is error apparent on the
face of the records,
In the circumstances, the Review Petition is
allowed and the judgment dated 06.09.2021 is recalled, for
reconsideration of the writ petition.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/19.04.2022
