IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE16H DAY OF JANUARY201426TH POUSHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 1486 of 2014 (I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONETS: -------------------- 1. FATHIMA RUBY, D/O.KOYA, AGED21YEARS, THATTURKANDIYIL KANDIYIL HOUSE, PAVANDOOR.P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 613.
2. RAZAK, S/O.AMMED,AGED41YEARS, KUTTAMBIL HOUSE, KAKKUR VILLAGE, NADUVALLOOR DESOM, KAKKUR PANCHAYATH P.O, PAVANDOOR - 673 613.
3. SHAMEENA, D/O.AMMEDKOYA, AGED36YEARS, KUTTAMBIL HOUSE, KAKKUR VILLAGE, NADUVALLOOR DESOM, KAKKUR PANCHAYATH P.O, PAVANDOOR - 673 613. BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.FIROZ, SMT.M.SHAJNA FIROZ, SRI.M.MOHAMMED SUHAIB. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAKKUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 619.
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE -673 001.
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE.
4. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
5. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, (UNDER KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT) KAKKUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTEDBY ITS CONVENOR AND AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, KAKKUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 619. Prv. W.P.(C).NO.1486/2014-I:
6. THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISATION COMMITTEE, (UNDER KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET - LAND ACT) REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR AND - PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE -673 020.
7. THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE, (UNDER KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT) REPRESENTED- BY ITS CONVENOR AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - COMMISSIONER, MAIN BUILDING,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
8. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.
9. THE PRESIDENT, KAKKUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KAKKUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 619. R1 TO R8 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (REVEUE) SRI. P.K. SOYUZ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1601-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. W.P.(C).NO.1486/2014-I: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P-1: A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1713 OF2011DATED215.2011 OF CHELANNUR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE IN RESPECT OF WAY PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P-2: A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.262/2011-12 GRANTED BY THE KAKKUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH FOR RESIDENTIAL USE IN FAVOUR OF THE1T PETITIONER AND ISMAIL. EXT.P-3: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/REPORT DATED610.2012 PLACED BY THE5H RESPONDENT BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER. EXT.P-4: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED248.2012 BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT AND ENDORSEMENT THEREIN. EXT.P-5: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED232.2013 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT TO THE2D PETITIONER. EXT.P-6: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED307.2013 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE2D PETITIONER POINTING OUT THAT THE FILLING OF PADDY LAND IS PERMISSIBLE ONLY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE OR FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE. EXT.P-7: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.L10- 34018/13 DATED712.2013 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KAKKUR BASED ON THE LETTER OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER NO.LRA1/37855/13 DATED510.2013. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
.............................................................................. W.P.(C)No.1486 OF2014......................................................................... Dated this the 16th January, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are owners of various extents of properties comprised in resurvey No.55/2 of Kakkur Village. With intent to construct a residential building in the said property, the petitioners approached the concerned local authority/Kakkur Grama Panchayat who issued Ext.P2 permit .The case of the petitioners is that a narrow ridge/Varambu going through the paddy land forms a pathway leading to the property of the petitioners, which is also being used by other local public as well for their conveyance. The said 'Varambu' was sought to be widened to a reasonable level to make use of the same for enjoying the residential building sought to be constructed by the petitioners on the strength of Ext.P2 permit. It was in the said circumstance, the petitioners sought for permission from the concerned Local Level Monitoring Committee(LLMC) /5th respondent by filing necessary application in this regard.
2. The matter was considered and the 5th respondent/LLMC forwarded Ext.P3 report to the second respondent/RDO with the observation that the request made by the petitioner is not liable W.P.(C)No.1486 OF20142 to be favourably considered and hence the course stipulated under the statute to have routed through the District Level Authorisation Committee was given a go-bye, by submitting the same directly to the RDO. Met with the situation, the petitioners approached the second respondent/RDO by filing Ext.P4 representation and the request was turned down by Ext.P5 communication dated 23.02.2013 . Thereafter, the petitioners submitted a fresh application before the third respondent/District Collector, whereupon helplessness was let known as per Ext. P6 communication dated 30.07.2013.
3. On approaching the Commissioner for Land Revenue/4th respondent , proceedings dated 05.10.2013 was issued to the District Collector to take necessary steps and the matter was considered further by the District Collector/third respondent , who issued Ext.P7 communication dated 07.12.2013 to the concerned Agricultural Officer with copy to the petitioners as to the course to be pursued. The petitioners are aggrieved of the laxity on the part of the respondents in redressing the grievance of the petitioners . Hence this writ petition.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. W.P.(C)No.1486 OF20143 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that by virtue of the public purpose involved, the matter has to be considered by the 7th respondent/State Level Committee by virtue of the mandate under Section 8(1) of the Act 28 of 2008. There is also a contention that by virtue of the proposed construction of the building and the personal use of the petitioners, the issue is liable to be considered by the 6th respondent/District Level Authorisation Committee as well and hence the course and proceedings finalised by the respondents are not correct or sustainable.
6. The learned Government Pleader, on the basis of instruction and also with reference to the relevant provisions of law submits, that the 6th respondent/District Level Authorisation Committee does not have the power or jurisdiction to deal with the issue, more so when the filling up of the land sought for is not for construction of a residential building, but for widening the ridge/Varambu. The scope of power and authority of the 6th respondent/District Level Authorisation Committee is also discernible from Section 9(8), which contemplates four different situations specifically mentioned therein, enabling the Local Level W.P.(C)No.1486 OF20144 Monitoring Committee (LLMC) to submit recommendation in that regard, so as to have the matter considered and finalised by the District Level Authorisation Committee, which situation is not available to the case in hand. It is stated that by virtue of the alleged public purpose, it can only be considered by the State Level Committee/7th respondent.
7. In the above circumstance, the fifth respondent/Local Level Monitoring Committee is directed to conduct a spot inspection with notice to the petitioners and submit a report/remarks/recommendation as the case may be to the 7th respondent/State Level Committee at the earliest , at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On receipt of the proceedings, the matter shall be considered and finalised by the 7th respondent , after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and necessary report shall be forwarded to the 8th respondent/Secretary to the Department of Agriculture, within two months. On receipt of the said proceedings, the matter shall be considered and finalised by the 8th respondent/Secretary to the Department, after hearing within two months thereafter. It is made clear that Ext.P3 report W.P.(C)No.1486 OF20145 of the 5th respondent/LLMC and Ext.P6 proceedings of the third respondent/District Collector will not stand in the way of the above respondents while considering and finalising the matter afresh. The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondents for further steps. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk