JUDGMENT

1.This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- “i) Call for the records leading to Exhibits.P8, P9 and P12 and quash the same by issue of a writ of Certiorari or such other writ order or direction ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, or such other writ, order or direction, compelling the 2nd respondent to regularize the shed No.UA363A of Ward No.Xil of Kodungallur Municipality in accordance with law, without insisting for a certificate under Section 27A or any of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.”

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

3.It is submitted that the petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 9.5 Acres of land in Survey Nos.405,405/5, 406/1 and 406/2 in Pulloot village, which is being used for prawn cultivation for more than seven decades. The petitioner relies on Exhibits P1 to P3 documents. It is submitted that the petitioner constructed a temporary shed with tin sheet roofing with a built up area of 91.27 sq.m. in a portion of the property for storing water parameter equipment, paddle wheel aerators, rice bran, prawn feeds, limestone powder etc. and also to house a watchman in connection with the prawn cultivation. It is submitted that though an application was submitted for regularisation of the construction, the construction has not been regularised on the ground that the regularisation has to be carried out after obtaining orders under Section 27A of the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act. Exhibit P8 is the reply issued to the petitioner's application by the Municipality. Ext.P12 order of the Municipality rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularisation is also under challenge.

4.The learned counsel relies on Exhibit P11 judgment to contend that where what is sought to be regularised is only a watch shed and the facility for storing agricultural implements, there is an exemption available in the Municipal Building Rules. Additional documents have been produced by the petitioner showing the plan of the shed constructed in the property as also the photographs.

5.A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent stating therein that the construction made by the petitioner has an area of 91.27sq.m (982.422 sq.ft) and that no permission had been obtained from the Municipality. It is stated that since the property was admittedly Paddy land, the petitioner was required to get orders of permission under the said Act. It is submitted that pursuant to Exhibit P11 judgment, it was found that the property on which the construction was carried out is classified as Nilam in the BTR, but has not been included in the data bank. It is submitted that as per Section 27A(6) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the Municipality has no authority to regularise a building unauthorisedly constructed by the petitioner in a paddy land. It is stated that under the said provision, the 1st respondent is empowered to permit construction of a residential building having an extent of 120sq.m in 10 cents of Nilam and commercial building having an extent of 40sq.m in 5 cents of Nilam. It is stated that Exhibit P11 judgment does not apply to the instant case, since the construction of the shed in that case was only for a housing arrangement and specific directions have been issued to the petitioner to submit the sketch and plan before the Municipality and to obtain permission before constructing the temporary shed. Contentions are raised with regard to the continuous permissions granted to the petitioner for prawn cultivation carried out by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has to seek regularisation of the use of the property after paying due fees.

6. The learned standing counsel would also submit that the extent of the conversion carried out by the petitioner would show that the construction is having an area of nearly 1000 sq.feet and that th