Petitioner is the owner of an extent of 12.14

ares of property situate in Sy.No. 837/1A of

Kothamangalam Village. Property was a reclaimed

land, converted more than 50 years back. The nature

of the property shown in the data bank constituted

as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of

Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (herein after

referred to as the Act, 2008) as converted land.

Petitioner thereupon made an application under

Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967,

seeking permission for utilisation of the property

for other purposes other than paddy cultivation and

agricultural operations. Petitioner submitted an

application for building permit and thereafter

secured Ext.P4 judgment whereby certain directions

were issued to the Secretary of the Municipality for

consideration of the application submitted by the

3

petitioner. Evidently, petitioner has secured an

order from the Revenue Divisional Officer that is

Ext.P5, subject to certain conditions including the

financial commitments prescribed under Section 27 A

of the Act, 2008 as amended by Act, 2018. It was

also directed to secure necessary orders in the

revenue records. Case projected by the petitioner is

that Ext.P6 order is passed by the 2^nd respondent

directing the petitioner to produce necessary orders

changing the entries in the revenue records and

thereafter the building permit application will be

considered. Petitioner relies upon Ext.P7 judgment

rendered by this Court in w.P.(C) No. 40020/2018

dated 12.12.2018 whereby the issue was considered

and directed the Municipality to consider the

building permit application without insisting for

production of order as prescribed under Section 27C

of the Act, 2008. According to the petitioner,

petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of the

proposition of the law laid down by this Court in

Ext.P7 judgment.

4

2.

I have heard learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the

Municipality and perused the pleadings and documents

on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner

reiterated the contentions raised in the writ

petition. However, learned Standing Counsel

submitted that Ext.P7 judgment rendered by this

Court was not produced before the 2^nd respondent for

consideration of the building permit application

submitted by the petitioner.

3.

Any how in view of Ext.P5, order secured

from the Revenue Divisional Officer, the

application will be considered by the Secretary of

the Municipality in accordance with law. In that

view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed

of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the

building permit application submitted by the

petitioner, taking into account Ext.P5 and also the

proposition laid down in Ext.P7 judgment rendered by

this Court, at the earliest and at any rate, within

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

5

judgment. However I make it clear that, the issue

with respect to the financial stipulations provided

under Ext.P5 order passed by the Revenue Divisional

Officer will remain intact, and the directions to

the 2^nd respondent shall not be construed as an

expression of opinion on the issues stated in Ext.P5

order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Hmh

6

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1

TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED DATED

20.7.2017.

EXHIBIT P2

TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE NO.46 OF THE DRAFT

DATA BANK PREPARED BY THE 2ND

RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3

TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH OF THE

PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.

EXHIBIT P4

TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)

NO.17261/18.

EXHIBIT P5

TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE

DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED

3.11.2018.

EXHIBIT P6

TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE

2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT

TRUE COPY