JUDGMENT

The petitioners, who are stated to be the owners of the land involved in this case, have approached this court impugning Ext.P7 order issued by the 7th respondent-Village Officer, through which, their request for issuance of Possession Certificate with respect to it, for the purpose of construction of a commercial building thereon, has been rejected saying that it is covered by an exemption under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (KLR Act, for short.)

2. Sri.K.Jayesh Mohankumar - the learned counsel for the petitioners, further submitted that the statements in Ext.P7 are wholly incorrect and untenable because, as is evident from Ext.P3 - which was issued by the District Collector as early as on 07.10.2014, his clients' predecessors – in – interest were allowed to convert the property, which is manifest from Ext.P4 proceedings of the jurisdictional Geologist. He submits that, therefore, once the land has been converted as early as in the years 2014-15, it does not stand to reason that the Tahasildar should now reject his clients' applications for a Possession Certificate, on the ground that the property has to be maintained as a Plantation.

3. Sri.K.Jayesh Mohankumar, thereafter, showed me that Exts.P5 and P6 earlier requests for building permits were considered by the 6th respondent-Panchayath and that it has been found that the property in question is suitable for construction of a commercial complex. He contented that, therefore, Ext.P7, which has been issued by the 7th respondent-Village Officer in complete disregard to all these aspects, cannot find favour in law; with an adscititiious argument being impelled that, in any event of the matter, there is nothing on record to show that the land is covered by Section 81 of the KLR Act and that no documents have been placed on record by the respondents in its substantiation until now. Sri.K.Jayesh Mohankumar, therefore, prayed that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted to his clients.

4. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader-

Smt.Surya Binoy, submitted that since the property in question is one that which is enjoying protection under Section 81 of the KLR Act, it cannot be used for any other purpose other than as a Plantation. She submitted that, therefore, the mere fact that the 2nd and 3rd respondents - the District Collector or the Geologist respectively, had issued Exts.P3 and P4 would be or no consequence because their actions cannot be take away the statutory rigour under the afore mentioned act. She then added that, in fact Exts.P3 and P4 would show that they were issued by the District Collector and the Geologist under the impression that the petitioner was proposing to make a residential construction only; and, therefore that these orders cannot be used by the petitioners to seek permission to put up a commercial building in the lands covered by Section 81 of the 'KLR Act”. She thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. At this time, Smt.Surya Binoy, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the official respondents will be in a position to produce the records before this court show that is the property is covered by an exemption under Section 81 of the KLR Act and requested for such an opportunity. However I do not think, this is necessary because these aspects are to be considered by the Village Officer at the first instance and cannot be decided by this court at this stage.

5. Sri.Binoy C.Cheriyan - the learned Standing Counsel for the

6th respondent - Thamarassery Grama Panchayath submitted that the competent officials of his client had earlier acted affirmatively on the applications of the petitioners for construction of a commercial complex only because they were not aware that the property in question is covered by protection under Section 81 of the KLR Act. He added that since the Village Officer has so intimated them, no further action with respect to the applications of the petitioners can be taken f