The court emphasized the importance of considering binding orders issued by competent tribunals and held that such orders should not be ignored by the authorities.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners are before this Court seeking to direct the 5th respondent to issue building permit on Ext.P5 application submitted by them. The petitioners further seek to declare that Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 is not applicable to the land, in the light of Ext.P3 order passed by the Tribunal.

2. The petitioners purchased 11.67 Ares of property comprised in Re-survey No.31/12, 31/14 and 32/1 of Tanalur Village, Malappuram District. The property was purchased on 05.09.2013 as per Ext.P1 sale deed. The property was purchased from one Mohammedkutti.

3. When the petitioners approached the respondents seeking Building Permit, the same was rejected as per Ext.P6 order on the ground that since the land is a paddy land falling within the ambit of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the petitioners have to obtain permission from the Revenue Divisional Officer first.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land though included in the Land Data Bank, it is specifically mentioned in the Land Data Bank that the land was converted prior to 2008. Since the land is a garden land even prior to 2008, the provisions of the Act, 2008 will not apply. The learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had filed appeal No.396/2013 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram when building permit application was similarly rejected by the Panchayat authorities. The Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, after considering the pleadings, held that the property is not included as paddy land or wetland in the Data Bank but has been shown as converted prior to 2008. The Tribunal accordingly directed the respondents to issue building permit to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. In view of Ext.P3 also, the impugned order at Ext.P6 is unsustainable, contended the learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. Respondents 5 and 6, the Secretary to Grama Panchayat and Tanalur Grama Panchayat respectively, filed a counter statement and contested the writ petition. Respondents 5 and 6 pointed out that the land in question would fall under the purview of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and as per Section 27A of the Act, the petitioners, in order to utilise it for commercial or any other purposes, are required to obtain the consent of the RDO. Therefore, the Panchayat cannot consider Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner ignoring Section 27A.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat further submitted that Ext.P3 order is an ex-parte order and Ext.P3 order was passed not in favour of the petitioners but in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners. For that reason also, Ext.P3 cannot be taken into account for deciding the claim of the petitioners for Building Permit. The writ petition is therefore without any merit, contended the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 5 and 6.

8. It is evident from Ext.P3 that the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners had applied for building permit for construction of a building in the land in question. The Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, after appreciating the pleadings in the appeal, held that the property is not included as paddy land or wetland in the Data Bank but shown as converted prior to 2008. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order impugned in the appeal and the appeal was allowed directing the Panchayat authorities to issue Building Permit. Ext.P3 order, though is said to be an ex-parte order, has not been challenged by the Panchayat authorities. As long as Ext.P3 is not challenged, the findings contained in Ext.P3 with regard to the lan