The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 proceedings of the second respondent by which an application for regularization of a construction effected by him has been rejected. The reason stated for rejection is that the petitioner's residential house has an area in excess of 300 square meters. Therefore, in view of the circular dated 31.7.2008, it is stated that, the petitioner's construction could not be regularized. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the circular referred to and relied upon is applicable only to the converted paddy fields. The petitioner's property was never a paddy field as evident from Exts.P2 series of photographs. The petitioner also places reliance on Ext.P3 extract of the Data Bank to point out that his property has been described as converted land. The effect of Ext.P3 according to the counsel is that, his property was not a paddy filed or wet land on the date of coming into force of W.P.(C).No.20875 of 2013 2 the Act 28 of 2008. For the above reason, Ext.P6 is liable to be set aside.
3. Adv.Mathew Scaria appears for respondents 1 and 2. The learned Government Pleader appears for the third respondent. According to the counsel for the Panchayat, in view of the circular, the Panchayat has no power to grant the regularization that has been sought for.
4. Heard. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's property is no longer a paddy filed. A perusal of Ext.P2 series of photographs show that the petitioner's property is occupied by a residential house. The rest of the property shows the presence of grown up coconut palms and other improvements therein. Ext.P3 Data Bank describes the property as converted land. The circular referred to in Ext.P6 is applicable only to properties with respect to which, the provisions of Act 28 of 2008 are applicable. It has been held by this Court that the provisions of Act 28 of 2008 have no application to properties that were not paddy fields or wet lands on the date of coming into force of the enactment. It is therefore held that the reason stated in Ext.P6 is unsustainable. Ext.P6 is W.P.(C).No.20875 of 2013 3 therefore set aside.
This writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to consider the application for regularization submitted by the petitioner without reference to the circular referred to in Ext.P6 and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
rkc.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.