Muhammed Rafi vs. Chavakkad Municipality

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not preferred any appeal against Ext.R2 (c). However, according to the petitioner, action was initiated by the 2nd respondent, since the property in which the shed was constructed, is situated in a paddy field, covered so by the revenue records as well as in BTR. Thereupon, petitioner has now submitted Ext.P10 application before the 3rd respondent seeking permission for utilisation of the property for other purposes other than paddy cultivation and agricultural operations.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a situation would suffice if a direction is issued to the 3rd respondent to finalise the proceedings as per Ext.P10 within a time frame and till such time coercive action contemplated as per Ext.R2 (c) may be directed to be kept in abeyance.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to finalise the proceedings pertaining to Ext.P10 at the earliest possible time, and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after verifying the veracity of the submission made in the writ petition that the property is not included in the data bank constituted as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. Till such time, the directives are complied with as specified above, coercive action, as per Ext.R2 (c) shall be kept in abeyance. Thereafter, petitioner will be guided by the orders passed by the additional 4th respondent in accordance with the directives contained above. I am informed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that already the power connection is disconnected by the KSEB. If the petitioner is producing necessary orders from the additional 3rd respondent as directed above, the re-connection application shall be considered by the additional 4th respondent, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE Jm/ APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE SALE DEED NO.1849/2006 OF SRO, KOTTAPPADY DATED 20/9/2006 IN RESPECT OF 7.48 ARES (18.48 CENTS) OF PROPERTY IN SY. NO.194/1 OF GURUVAYOOR VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 26/6/2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THEBUILDING PERMIT NO. TEMP.BUILD 01/16-17 DATED 31/5/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE APPROVED PLAN ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31/5/2016 EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 27/6/2016. EXHIBIT P7 AOF THE RECEIPT DATE D7/12/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 AOF THE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28/2/2018 ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P9 AOF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 8/8/2017 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P10 AOF THE APPLICATION UNDER C1.6 OF THE KLU SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE RDO, THRISSUR. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :