JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

“i. Call for the records leading to the passing of Ext. P6 and to quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order.

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to re consider Ext. P4 application submitted by the petitioner and issue Building permit, if it is otherwise in order, notwithstanding the fact that the same forms part of an exempted plantation under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

iii. grant such other reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

iv. to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language.” [sic]

2. The Petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 4.05 Ares in Re.Survey No. 245/6-31 of Mundakayam Panchayat, Mundakayam Village by virtue of Ext. P1 Sale Deed is the submission. The said property is mutated in the name of the petitioner. When the Petitioner submitted Ext. P4 application for building permit before the 2^nd respondent, the same has been rejected, vide Ext. P6, stating that as per the revenue records, the property of the petitioner is shown as part of plantation and therefore, no construction can be made in that property. According to the petitioner, Even though the land covered by Exhibit P1-sale deed is said to be a plantation, the alienation of the same is not prohibited under the provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act unless a prohibitory order under Section 120A of the said Act is issued with respect to such plantation. Since the alienation is not prohibited, it is submitted that Exhibit P1 sale deed is a valid document. The only consequence is that the said deeds will be subject to any future proceedings that may be initiated by the Taluk Land Board in the event of any conversion is the submission. It is submitted that the said position of law stands explained in the decision of this Honourable Court in Kinallur Rock Sand (M/s.) v. State of Kerla and Others reported in [2021 (2) KLT 351] and in Devassia R.V. and another V. Sub Registrar, Idukki and others reported in [2015(1) KLT 825] . It is also submitted that as per the dictum laid down by this Court in State of Kerala V. Fr. Xavier Karuvallil and others reported in [2015(3) KLT 573], a deemed tenant is entitled for the protection of 7E even though he has not obtained the purchase certificate. On that count also, it is submitted that the petitioner can claim that unless and until a different finding is arrived by the competent authority in appropriate proceedings, the petitioner cannot be prevented from enjoying the benefits out of his property covered by Ext.P1 as guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. In similar situation, this Court directed the Mundakkayam Panchayat itself to reconsider and process the building permit is the submission. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled the relief.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. It is conceded by both sides that the point raised in this Writ petition is covered in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P7 judgment and the Panchayath can be directed to reconsider the matter. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P7 judgment:

“3. It is trite that there can be no restriction in constructing building on a land that was exempted as a plantation under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 [for short, ‘the KLR Act’]. The Full Bench of this Court in Mathew K.Jacob and Another v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority [2018 (5) KHC 487 : 2018 (4) KLT 913 : ILR 2018 (4) Ker. 868 : 2019 (1) KLJ 49 : AIR 2019 Ker.67] held that there is no prohibition in using an exempted land for a different purpose under the KLR Act. In District Collector v. Sajith Lal [2023 KLT OnLine 1225], a Division Bench of