Abdul Majeed vs Anakkara Grama Panchayath Rep. By ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 623 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
 FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 24TH POUSHA, 1943
                  WP(C) NO. 9224 OF 2013
PETITIONERS:

    1    ABDUL MAJEED
         AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.MARAKKAR MAULAVI,
         PUTHANPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, 4/389, KOODALLUR,
         ANAKKARA VILLAGE, ANAKKARA DESOM,
         PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679554.
    2    SAKEENA
         AGED 26 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL MAJEED,
         PUTHANPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, 4/389, KOODALLUR,
         ANAKKARA VILLAGE, ANAKKARA DESOM, PALAKKAD
         DISTRICT, PIN-679554
         BY ADVS.
         SRI.BIJU MARTIN
         SRI.M.M.SALIM


RESPONDENTS:

    1    ANAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
         ANAKKARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
    2    SECRETARY
         ANAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
         ANAKKARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.


     THIS WRIT PETITION     (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP     FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.01.2022,    THE COURT ON THE SAME      DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
     W.P(C).9224/2013
                                       2



                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of January, 2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner basically challenging

Exhibit P6 notice dated 5.12.2012, issued by the authorised

Officer/Village Officer, Anakkara Village, Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad

District, apparently under Section 12(2)(b) of the Kerala Conservation of

Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 alleging that the petitioner is filling

up a paddy field and directed the petitioner to stop the said activity. It is

also the case of the petitioner that the Secretary of Anakkara Grama

Panchayat is to consider the building permit application unmindful of the

fact that the property in question, in which the building permit is sought

for, is a paddy field.

2. Going by the tenor of the pleadings, it is clear that the property

is included in the draft data bank. However, the case of the petitioner is

that final data bank is not published.

3. I have perused the pleadings and material on record and I am

of the considered opinion that when a building permit application is

submitted before the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, the Secretary of

the Grama Panchayat, as per the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat W.P(C).9224/2013

Building Rules, 2011 or the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, is

duty bound to ascertain whether the property has got any consequences

adverse to the owner so as to consider the same for construction of a

building.

4. Therefore, if the property is included in the data bank, it is for the

petitioner to pursue remedies under the provisions of the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. If the property is

not included in the data bank, it is for the petitioner to secure necessary

orders in contemplation of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of

Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.

5. Viewed in that circumstances, I do not think that petitioner is

entitled to get the relief for consideration of the building permit application

dehors the inclusion of the property in the data bank, constituted as per

the provisions of Act, 2008 or the property remaining in the village records

as a paddy field.

6. It is significant to note that even though Exhibit P6 order, issued

by the Village Officer, is challenged by the petitioner, none of the

Government Officials are made parties to the writ petition. Moreover, it is

only a notice asking the petitioner to stop the illegal filling of the paddy

field and it is for the petitioner to pursue his remedies by submitting

suitable objection to the same.

W.P(C).9224/2013

7. In sum and substance, I do not find any reason to grant the relief

as was sought for in the writ petition. However, I make it clear that the

petitioner is at liberty to file suitable application before the statutory

authority and pursue the proceedings in accordance with law.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. I make it clear that if under

any circumstances, the issues are settled in terms of law, the

proceedings shall not be reopened.

Sd/-

Shaji P. Chaly, Judge sou.

W.P(C).9224/2013

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9224/2013

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF SALE DEED NO.16680/2008 DATED 30.12.2008 EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTED 5.12.12 EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18.8.2010 EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2012(3) KLT 86 EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2012(1) KLT 491 EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.12.2012