Jamsheer vs The Secretary
2022 Latest Caselaw 8316 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
        FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 15802 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:

    1      JAMSHEER
           PATTIKADAN VEEDU,
           KADANNAMANNA, PERINTHALMANNA.

    2      NADRAS
           THALATHIL CHANKKUMKAL VEEDU,
           THIRUVAMBADI,KOZHIKODE.

           BY ADV SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
           ADV. ANUMOD B. NAIR
           ADV. CHITRA G.


RESPONDENT/S:

    1      THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
           MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MANJERI,PIN-676 120.

    2      THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
           MALAPPURAM,PIN-676 120.

    3      VILLAGE OFFICER
           MANJERI VILLAGE OFFICE, MANJERI,PIN-676 120.

 *ADDL. 4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
          PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MANJERI.

           *ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.8.16 IN IA
           NO.13205/2016.

           BY ADV SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA, SC, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY
           R2,R3 AND ADDL.R4 - SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR. GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.15802 of 2016
                                  2


                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of July, 2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to

quash Exhibit P3 order passed by the Secretary of Manjeri

Municipality dated 18.02.2016 whereby the application

submitted by the petitioner for construction of a commercial

building was declined stating that the property in question

situated in Sy.No.341/3 of Manjeri Village is a paddy land

included in the data bank and remaining in the village records

as 'nilam'. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of

Exhibit P3, the writ petition is filed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners

Smt.G. Chitra and learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.K.P.

Harish and perused the pleadings and the material on record.

3. Admittedly the property is included in the data bank

constituted as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation

of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Once the property is

included in the data bank in terms of the provisions of the Act

2008, a person who is aggrieved has to approach the W.P.(C)No.15802 of 2016

concerned Local Level Monitoring Committee for ventilating

his grievance by submitting appropriate application in

accordance with the provisions of the Act 2008. It is also clear

and evident from the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2011

and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 that if any

consequences under any other statute for granting building

permit is remaining, the Secretary of the Municipality has to

take note of the same. So also, section 14 of Act 2008

specified that "Notwithstanding anything contained in the

Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994) or in the Kerala

Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1994) no Local Authority shall

grant any licence or permit under the said Act for carrying out

any activity or construction in a paddy land or a wetland or an

unnotified land, nature of which has been changed in

contravention of the provisions of this Act converted or

reclaimed in contravention of the provisions of this Act."

4. In that view of the matter, I do not think there is any

illegality or arbitrariness remaining in Exhibit P3 order liable

to be interfered with by this court exercising the power of W.P.(C)No.15802 of 2016

judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India.

Therefore, the writ petition has no legal sustenance.

Accordingly it is dismissed. However, I make it clear that the

petitioner is at liberty to approach the Local Level Monitoring

Committee concerned in accordance with the provisions of

the Act 2008. If the petitioner is producing any enabling

orders before the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat and

submit a fresh application, I do not think the Secretary of the

Grama Panchayat would not take into consideration the

application and the order passed by the statutory authority

and act upon the same.

Sd/-

Shaji P.Chaly Judge

vpv W.P.(C)No.15802 of 2016

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15802/2016

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO:98/2015.

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

EXT.P3            TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
                  RESPONDENT DATED 18.2.2016.

EXT.P4            TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LIE
                  AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY.




                                                      //TRUE COPY//



                                                      P.A. TO JUDGE