V.K.Rajeev vs Vechoor Grama Panchayat on 16 September, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23473 of 2009(D)


1. V.K.RAJEEV, AGED 41 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. VECHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.A.ASIF

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :16/09/2009

 O R D E R
               THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J
                  ...........................................
                 WP(C).NO. 23473                OF 2009
                 ............................................
      DATED THIS THE         16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner obtained Ext.P5 No Objection Certificate and

is stated to have carried out a construction. His application for

numbering the building has been refused as per Ext.P6 by stating

that the land is a wet land. While he relies on Ext.P3 and P4, the

respondent panchayat, through counter affidavit and Ext.R1(b)

states that Ext.P3 is one obtained by fraud and Ext.R1(b)

evidences that the land in question is actually wet land. I may

also note that Ext.P3, though is issued by the Village Officer,

Ext.P4 is issued by the Tahsildar showing that land is dry land. Is

it that fraud has been practised by the Village Officer or the

Tahsildar or the petitioner or by all the three ? The reply affidavit

of the petitioner stands to assert that the nature of the land is

not paddy land. He has produced Ext.P8 photographs to show the

nature of the construction.

2. With the aforesaid materials, the learned counsel for the

petitioner relied on the judgment of this court in Shahanaz

Wpc 23473/2009 2

Shukkoor V. Chelannur Grama Panchayat(2009(3) KLT 889)

and argued that the mere description of an item of land as nilam

in the revenue records is insufficient to conclude that the land is

wet land. That argument is sustainable. It has also been laid

down in the said precedent that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy

Land and Wet Land Act 2008 deals with conversion of lands which

are paddy fields or wet lands on the basis of actual fact situation

and not depending upon the description of the property in the

revenue records. Reference was made to the definition of paddy

field and wet land in that Act to hold that the said statute

operates on the basis of the facts as they exist, on ground

realities and not on quality or type of land depending upon its

description in title document. It was held that on the facts and

materials of that case it was proved to the satisfaction of this

court that the immediately surrounding lands and the land in

issue in that case have buildings standing therein and that this

court was satisfied that the mere description of the land as nilam

(paddy field) was not decisive.

3. In so far as the case in hand is concerned, a perusal of

Ext.P8 photographs show that the building has been constructed;

Wpc 23473/2009 3

it has been tiled. The nature of the land as available from the

photographs by itself may not be conclusive. No other land mark

in the location could be seen from that photograph. More

importantly, the panchayat, which is the statutory authority,

stands to assert that the revenue authorities themselves have

certified that Ext.P3 is one not worthy of credence. With Ext.R1

(b) being issued by the Village Officer, the question posed above

as to who were participus criminus in the fraud, still linkers. In

the first round, the Village Officer certifies that the land is dry

land. The Tahsildar certifies that the land is dry land. He did so

for the purpose of the petitioner to produce it before KSIDC. With

the passage of time, Village Officer again certifies that the land is

wet land. In this situation, the writ court may not stand advised

to enter on any particular finding regarding the nature of the

land, to exclude the requirement of proceedings either under

statute referred to above or otherwise. Therefore, while refusing

to interfere with the impugned decision and leaving the petitioner

to work out his remedies before the statutory authority including

the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, the

panchayat is directed to place a copy of this judgment before the

Wpc 23473/2009 4

District Collector, Kottayam, having regard to the conflict of

certificates issued by the Village Officer. All issues on merits will

stand left open.

THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE

lgk/16/9