Allowed

P.Shanmughan v. the Nannambara Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC21 Feb 2012WP(C)/2122/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the refusal to assign a building number to a commercial structure because revenue records classified the land as 'Nancha'. The Court held that the refusal was erroneous regardless of revenue description if the ground reality shows it is garden land and pre-dates the relevant Act.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P4 and P5 quashed. Respondent directed to consider petitioner's application and issue number verification within one month.

P.Shanmughan Vs the Nannambara Grama Panchayat — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/2ND PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 2122 of 2012 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.SHANMUGHAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.CHUNDANKUTTY, POOZHIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.THEYYALINGAL

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE NANNAMBARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.NANNAMBRA VIA, TIRUR-676101.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY, NANNAMBRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O.,NANNAMBRA, (VIA) TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY STANDING COUNSEL ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 2122 of 2012 (M)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXT.P1:COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 04.03.2009 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶19

EXT.P2:COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH.

¶20

EXT.P3:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.12.2010 BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, THEYYALINGAL.

¶21

EXT.P4:COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2011 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5:COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.11.2011.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶27

W.P.(c) No. 2122 OF 2012-M

¶28

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner is approaching this court aggrieved by the non-assignment of building number to a commercial building constructed by him during the year 2007. The request was turned down through Ext.P1 stating that the reason the description of the property in the Possession Certificate is as 'Nancha' (wet land) and hence permission cannot be granted for construction of commercial building. Contention of the petitioner is that the property in question remains as pucca garden land (dry land) and it situated on the side of a public road. According to the petitioner, even though the description in the revenue records and title documents remaining as 'Nancha', the land in question was converted more than 40 years ago. Petitioner had produced photographs of the construction which will indicate that the building is situated on the side of a public road in a pucca

¶31

W.P.(c) No. 2122/2012 -2-

¶32

garden land. Exhibit P3 certificate obtained from the Agricultural officer is also produced to show that the property in question is not included in the Data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet land Act, 2008. Evenafter producing all the documents the 2^nd respondent had issued Ext.P4 stating that even though the property is not included in the Data bank number cannot be assigned since the description of the property remains as 'Nancha'. The same view has been reiterated in Ext.P5 also, through which the request has been declined again.

¶33

Heard Sri. P.V. Kunhikrishnan, standing counsel appearing for the respondents. He pointed out that by way of various circulars issued by the Government the panchayat is restrained from assigning number to the commercial buildings, which are constructed in properties described as paddy fields. Per contra, Sri. K.K. Mohammed Ravuf has drawn my attention to a decision of this court in Shahanaz Shukoor V. Chelannoor Grama Panchayat

¶34

W.P.(c) No. 2122/2012

¶35

-3-

¶36

(2009 (3) KLT 899) wherein it is specifically held that the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet land Act, 2008 has no retrospective operation and merely because the description of the property remains as paddy land it cannot be considered that the property will come into the definition of paddy land and wet land under the said Act. The above view has been reiterated by a decision of the Division Bench in Praveen V. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KHC 499) and in Jafarkhan V. K.A. Kochumakkar and others (2012 (1) KHC 523 (DB) ..

¶37

Taking note of the facts and circumstances involved was well as the rival contentions raised, I am of the view that denial of number to the petitioner's building on the mere reasoning that the description of the property remains as 'Nancha' is absolutely erroneous and unjustified. It is for the 2^nd respondent to consider the ground reality and to ascertain as to whether the land remains as garden land and also as to whether it was converted prior to

¶38

W.P.(c) No. 2122/2012 -4-

¶39

commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet land Act. If such facts are through the verification the building shall be assigned numbers, notwithstanding the facts that description in the revenue records remaining as 'Nancha' (wet land).

¶40

Under the above circumstances the writ petition is allowed. Exhibits P4 and P5 are hereby quashed. The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner on 30-07-2008, seeking numbering of the building in question, and to take a fresh decision in accordance with the observations contained herein above.

¶41

The needful in this regard shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶43

AMG

¶44

True copy

¶45

P.A to Judge

P.Shanmughan v. the Nannambara Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Shanmughan v. the Nannambara Grama Panchayat

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

Vinil Varghese Vs the Pattuvam Grama Panchayath

V.P.Anilkumar Vs the Excise Commissioner

St.Joseph Church Vs the District Collector

K.L.Prameela Vs Kottangal Grama Panchayat

Badarudeen Vs Elamkunnapuzha Grama Panchayath

K.Saseendran Vs the Special Tahsildar