IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 2070 OF 2022 PETITIONERS:

1 M.A.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA AGED 54 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, MURUKUDY HOUSE, MOOLANKAVU P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 592.

2 SOUDHA M.A.

MURUKUDY HOUSE, MOOLANKAVU P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 592.

BY ADVS.

M.P.ASHOK KUMAR P.C.GOPINATH BINDU SREEDHAR ASIF N RESPONDENTS:

1 NOOLPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP. BY IT'S SECRETARY, MOOLPUZHA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 592.

2 THE SECRETARY NOOLPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NOOLPUZHA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 592.

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER NOOLPUZHA VILLAGE OFFICE, SULTAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 592. ADDL.R4 TAHSILDAR SULTAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 592. ADDL.R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.03.2022.

BY ADV SHRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY, SC, NOOLPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT VINITHA B-SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

09.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P10(a) and P10(b)

orders of the 1^st respondent and seeking directions to the 1^st respondent Panchayath to regularise the construction of existing structures in the property belonging to the petitioners.

2. It is submitted that the petitioners are the owners in possession of 1.1071 hectares of land in Re-survey No.420/2 and another extent of 0.20007 hectares of adjacent land in Re-survey No.420/4 in Noolppuzha Village, Sulthan Bathery Taluk, Wayanad District. It is submitted that the petitioners had started a poultry farm and had also submitted applications for regularisation of the construction made in the property. It is submitted that by Ext.P8 proceedings, in the possession certificate issued to the petitioners for the purpose of consideration of the application for regularisation, the Village Officer had noted that the pattayam had been issued in respect of the property for agricultural purpose. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the said endorsement in the possession certificate is a clear mistake and that the pattayam in respect of the land did not contain any such restriction. It is submitted that the petitioners had approached the respondents with applications for getting a copy of the pattayam and it was stated that the copy of the pattayam is not available. It is submitted that the right of the petitioners to have this application for regularisation of the construction, is also not been proceeded with due to wrong indication in Ext.P8.

3. The learned Government Pleader submits, on instructions, that the endorsement in Ext.P8 to the effect that the pattayam in respect of the property was granted only for agricultural purposes was a clerical mistake which occurred in the office of the 3^rd respondent. However, it is submitted that the 3^rd respondent is not competent to correct the mistake and in case the petitioners approach the Tahasildar, the relevant records will be verified and the mistake will be rectified without delay.

In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction that in case the petitioners approach the additional 4^th respondent for a correction of Ext.P8 possession certificate by removing the endorsement made therein which is admittedly erroneously made in the office of the 3^rd respondent, the same shall be considered and appropriate steps for correction of Ext.P8 shall be taken within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the corrected possession certificate, the petitioners may approach the 2^nd respondent with the same who shall consider the application for regularisation, in accordance with law. Appropriate action shall be taken by the 2^nd respondent within a further period of three weeks from the date of production of the corrected possession certificate.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE