The petitioners, owners of a plot of land admeasuring 27.92 cents within the limits of the first respondent Panchayat have filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P4 proceedings by which, the second respondent has declined regularisation of a construction put up by them. The reason stated in Exhibit P4 is that, the regularisation sought for could not be granted for the reason that the land has been described as paddy field in the Possession Certificate produced by the petitioners. 2. Advocate P.R.Venkatesh appears for the respondents. According to the counsel, though the property has not been included in the Data Bank prepared under Act 28 of 2008, the property is nevertheless described as paddy field in the Revenue Records. The grant of permission to construct a commercial building is not permissible as per the Government Circular that is applicable. The petitioners have made constructions in excess of what was permitted by Exhibit P3 building permit. The additional constructions made on property described as paddy field in the Revenue Records cannot be regularised.
3. Heard. Since it is admitted that the property has not been included as paddy field in the Data Bank prepared under Act 28 of 2008, the only presumption is that, the land was not a paddy field at the time of coming into force of the said enactment. It is also worth noticing that, the second respondent has already granted Exhibit P3 building permit to the petitioner, to effect the construction without raising any objection that the construction was sought to be made on land described as paddy field in the Revenue Records. It is true that, the petitioners have made constructions in excess of what has been permitted by Exhibit P3. The question as to whether the construction made can be regularised or not has to be considered de hors whether the land has been described as paddy land in the Revenue Records or not. The Circular referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents can have application only to lands to which the provisions of Act 28 of 2008 are applicable. The land of the petitioners not having been included in the Data Bank prepared under the said enactment cannot be said to be land to which the provisions thereof are applicable. Therefore, the circular also cannot have any application to the land of the petitioners.
In view of the above, Exhibits P4 and P5 cannot be sustained. The same are therefore set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the petitioners' application for regularization afresh and to pass appropriate orders in the matter, in accordance with law, after conducting an inspection of the site and the construction effected by the petitioner, to ascertain whether the same is capable of being regularized. Orders as indicated above shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj