Allowed

Kammu Haji V.K. v. the Nannambra Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC18 Nov 2010WP(C)/26682/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a building permit application. Relying on Shahanaz Shukkoor, the Judge held that mere revenue description as 'Nilam' does not deny a permit if facts show non-agricultural use. The order quashed the impugned order and directed reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Quash Ext.P7 and direct the Secretary to reconsider the application within one month.

Kammu Haji V.K. Vs the Nannambra Grama Panchayath — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 26682 of 2010(I)

PETITIONER(S):

KAMMUHAJI.V.K., S/O.ALAVI HAJI, VARIKKOTTIL, OMACHAPUZHA AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK.

¶10

THITHIMU, W/O.KAMMU HAJI, DO. DO.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

¶14

THE NANNAMBRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O.NANNAMBRA, 676 320, KUNDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR R1

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P(C)No.26682/2010

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED PURCHASE DEED NO.1056/87. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED PURCHASE DEED NO.256/88. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED PURCHASE DEED NO.1450/89. EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED PURCHASE DEED NO.253/07. EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED PURCHASE DEED NO.1128/93. EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED 21.6.2010.

¶21

EXT.P7. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1.3781/2000 DATED 22.6.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.45846/RA 1/08 OF LSGI, DATED 31.7.2008

¶23

/ TRUE COPY /

¶24

P.S.TO JUDGE

¶25

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶26

W.P(C).No.26682 of 2010

¶27

Dated this the 18^th day of November, 2010

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioners are husband and wife. They own the lands described in Exts.P1 to P5 sale deeds which lie as one compact plot. With a view to put up a commercial building in the said land, the petitioners submitted an application to the Secretary of the respondent Grama Panchayat for the issue of a building permit. By Ext.P7 order dated 22.6.2010 that application was rejected on the ground that in the possession certificate produced by the petitioners along with the application for building permit, the land is described as “Nancha”, meaning paddy land. Ext.P7 is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioners contend that to the

¶30

north of the lands belonging to them residential houses are situated, a public road passes along the eastern boundary and that on the south and west of the lands belonging to them petitioners are garden lands. It is contended that the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 have no application to the land belonging to them and therefore

¶31

W.P(C).No.26682 of 2010

¶32

-:2:-

¶33

the rejection of the application for building permit on the grounds stated in Ext.P7 cannot be sustained.

¶34

A statement dated 9.11.2010 has been filed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. It is contended that the petitioners' application for building permit was rejected in the light of Ext.R1(a) order wherein the Government has laid down the conditions subject to which exemption from the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 can be granted for constructing residential buildings.

¶35

I heard Sri.K.K.Mohammed Ravuf, learned counsel

¶36

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.V.Kunhikrishnan, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. A learned single Judge of this Court has in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009 (3) KLT 899) held that the mere description of an item of property as 'Nilam' in the revenue records or in the document of title cannot be a reason to deny a building permit. It was held that the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 operate on the basis of the facts as they exist on ground and not on the quality or type of land, or its description in the document of

¶37

W.P(C).No.26682 of 2010

¶38

-:3:-

¶39

title. In the light of the decision of this Court in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (supra) and having regard to the fact that the land where the petitioners propose to put up the building is not a paddy field, but land surrounded by buildings and abutting a public road, I am of the opinion that the stand taken by the respondent in Ext.P7 cannot be sustained.

¶40

In the result, I allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P7 and direct the Secretary, Nannambra Grama Panchayat, to reconsider the petitioners' application for building permit and take an appropriate decision thereon expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before him.

¶41

P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge.

¶42

ahg.

¶43

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶44

W.P(C).No.26682 of 2010

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

18^th November, 2010

Kammu Haji V.K. v. the Nannambra Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kammu Haji V.K. v. the Nannambra Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Soman Vs State of Kerala

K.Kunjulekshmi Vs the Union of India and Others

K.S.Vinod and Others Vs Wireless T.T. Infra Services Ltd. and

Shinu M.S. Vs K.P.S.C. & Ors.

Chapparappadavu Juma-Ath Palli Committee Vs Secretary Chapparappadavu Grama Panchaya

Edavacode Asokan Vs State of Kerala & Ors.