O R D E R

Respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition are the petitioners in this review petition.

2. The parties and documents are referred to in this order, as they appear in the writ petition.

3. The petitioner holds a land measuring 3.957 Ares in Guruvayoor Village. An application preferred by the petitioner for building permit to put up a building in the said land has been rejected by the fourth respondent Municipality on the ground that a portion of the land measuring 2.428 Ares is shown as a pond in the revenue records. The said decision of the Municipality was under challenge in the writ petition. This court took the view that in so far as the land of the petitioner is neither a paddy land nor a wetland, there cannot be any impediment in granting the building permit sought by the petitioner and consequently, disposed of the writ petition directing the Municipality to grant the building permit sought by the petitioner, if the application of the petitioner is otherwise in order. 4. Respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition, the Municipality and the Municipal Engineer seek review of the judgment on the ground that the portion of the land which is shown in the revenue records as pond would amount to an 'unnotified land' in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act) and a building permit can, therefore, be granted in respect of such a land only if the applicant obtains permission under Section 27A of the Act. According to respondents 4 and 5, this aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by this Court while disposing of the writ petition and hence this review.

5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 as also the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. No doubt, if the land of the petitioner satisfies the definition of `unnotified land' in terms of the provisions of the Act, permission under Section 27A of the Act is required for seeking a building permit in respect of the said land. The short question therefore, is as to whether the portion of the land of the petitioner which is shown in the revenue records as 'pond' is liable to be treated as `unnotified land' in terms of the provisions of the Act. The expression 'unnotified land' is defined in the Act thus:

(xviiA) “unnotified land” means the lands within the area of jurisdiction of the Committee which have been included as paddy land or wetland in the basic tax register maintained in Village Offices, but are not notified as paddy land or wetland under sub- section (4) of Section 5 or where data bank has not been published under the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (4) of Section 5, the lands which have already been filled up on the date of commencement of this Act and are not paddy land according to the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing Centre and the Local Level Monitoring Committee or where the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing Centre is not available, lands which are not paddy land according to the report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee;”

The case of respondents 4 and 5 is that since a portion of the land is shown as a pond in the revenue records, that portion is to be treated as a wetland under the Act and if that portion is treated as wetland, the same would satisfy the definition of 'un-notified land' since the same is not included as wetland in the data bank prepared under the Act. The scope of 'wetland' under the Act has been explained by this court in Suraj v. State Of Kerala, 2018 (1) KLT 1. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment reads thus:

“11. The Act is one brought into force to conserve the Paddy land and Wetland in the State in order to promote growth in the agricultural sector and to sustain the ecological system. Section 2 (xviii) of the Act defines 'wetland' thus;

(xviii) “wetland” means land lying between terrestrial and aquatic systems, where the water table is usually at or near the surface or which is covered by shallow water or characterized by the presenc