Reclaimed land prior to the Wet Land Act's commencement cannot be unjustly classified under restrictive terms affecting building permissions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner owns and possesses 42 cents of land comprised in survey Nos.70/2, 70/2-1 and 70/16 of Ennakkad village. Earlier, the petitioner obtained Ext.P7 D & O licence for establishing and operating a fuel outlet thereon under the Kisan Seva Kendra Scheme. For the purpose of providing amenities to the customers of the fuel outlet, the petitioner constructed a building in the same property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed in terms of the conditions of the aforesaid scheme. After effecting such construction, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application before the second respondent for numbering the building. Thereupon, the petitioner was asked to obtain a certificate from the third respondent as per Ext.P11. Subsequently, the petitioner produced Ext.P12 certificate before the second respondent carrying a certification from the third respondent that the W.P.(C).5807/14 2 building in question was not constructed in violation of the provisions of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act (Kerala) 2008 (for short the 'Wet Land Act'). Thereupon, the second respondent intimated the petitioner that the entry regarding the description of the property in the BTR is to be corrected in order to consider the Ext.P9 application. This writ petition has been filed in the said circumstances contending that wrong entry in the BTR regarding the nature of the land cannot be a ground for rejecting the application to number the building. In such circumstances, the petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent to consider Ext.P9 application and to number the building in accordance with law.

The petitioner also seeks for quashment of Ext.P14.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no justification for insisting the petitioner to W.P.(C).5807/14 3 get the entry regarding the nature of the land in BTR corrected and to produce a certificate to that effect in order to consider Ext.P9 application. It is the contention of the petitioner that if the land in question was converted prior to the commencement of the Wet Land Act, the wrong description of the land in question cannot be assigned as a reason for rejecting Ext.P9 application. The contention of the petitioner is that since the panchayat in question is a Grade-II panchayat, there is no need to apply and obtain building permit. In this case, the petitioner has already completed the construction and the completion certificate was submitted along with Ext.P9 application for numbering the building. It is the further contention of the petitioner that in respect of a land which was reclaimed prior to the commencement of the Wet Land Act, 2008, the fact that it is described still as 'Nilam' or 'paddy field' cannot be a reason for refusing to number the building or to grant building permit. To lend support to the said contention, the petitioner relied on decisions of this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009(3)

W.P.(C).5807/14 4 KLT 899] and Mohammed Abdul Basheer v. State of Kerala [2012 (3) KLT 86]. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ground reality has to be looked into by the respondents and if on inspection it is found that the land in question was reclaimed prior to the commencement of the Wet Land Act, Ext.P9 application for assignment of building number has to be considered in accordance with the relevant provisions. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that on account of the delay in the matter of assignment of building number, the petitioner is not in a position to use the building constructed in tune with the requirement under the Kisan Seva Kendra Scheme. Admittedly, Ext.P9 application submitted by the petitioner for assignment of building number is still pending before the second respondent. Obviously, the delay in its co