High Court of KeralaWP(C)/22378/2015disposed of

M. Krishna Kumar v. The Secretary

2015-09-17Honourable Mr.Justice P.Bhavadasan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/26TH BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 22378 of 2015 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- M. KRISHNA KUMAR, AGED 58 YEARS S/O.BALAGOPALAN, 34/329(1) VELLATE HOUSE, KARUKODI VADAKKANTHARA, P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S SRI.SIBI BHAGAVANDAS SRI.NOBEL RAJU SRI.K.S.CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. THE SECRETARY PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY OFFICE OF THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY NEAR MUNICIPAL TOWN HALL PALAKKAD, PIN: 678 001.

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN:695 001.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.APPU BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. JAYAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 22378 of 2015 (V) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1:

A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAD 1, DATED 16/2/13 P2:

A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT BEARING NUMBER 6670481 DATED 28/6/2013, FROM THE PALAKKAD 1 VILLAGE OFFICE P3:

A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27/6/2014 OBTAINED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT P4:

A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN WPC NO.30700/2014 DATED 12/1/2015 P5:

A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10/6/2015.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -------------------------------------- //True copy// P.A. to Judge

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C. No. 22378 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of September, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Under challenge is Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for construction of a residential building. The reason given is that it comes within the ambit of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act and therefore, the application cannot be considered.

The petitioner points out that in the neighbourhood, buildings have been put up by other persons with the permission of the first respondent and the reason now given has no basis at all. In similar cases, this Court has been taking a consistent stand that in such cases, it is for the local authority to make local inspection and satisfy itself as to the nature of land and then consider the application.

W.P.C. No. 22378 of 2015 -23.

Merely because the records indicate that it is a paddy land, it is not sufficient according to this Court, if actually on inspection turns out to be otherwise. There is no reason as to why the benefit extended to similarly situated persons should not be extended to the petitioner also. This petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and the first respondent is directed to reconsider the issue after conducting local inspection.

Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. to Judge