Allowed

Aminu v. the Secretary, Punnayurkulam Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC21 Jul 2015WP(C)/14385/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought building permit to construct an English medium school on land classified as nanja. Petitioner challenged the refusal based on outdated revenue classification. Court ruled that physical nature of land matters more than record classification and directed inspection.

What did the court decide?

P4 quashed; Panchayat directed to conduct inspection, give petitioner opportunity of hearing, and grant permit if land is unfit for paddy cultivation within two months.

Aminu Vs the Secretary, Punnayurkulam Grama Panchayath — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2015/30TH ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 14385 of 2015 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

AMINU, W/O.AVVU, EZIKOTTAYIL HOUSE, PUNNAYOORKULAM. P.O., PAROOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SECRETARY, PUNNAYURKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, P.O. PUNNAYURKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 679 561.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA,

¶12

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SMT.R.RAJITHA, SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 14385 of 2015 (W)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

P1A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, CHAVAKKAD AS PER ITS CERTIFICATE NO.397/1975.

¶20

P2A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF 32 CENTS OF LAND IN SY.NO.213/6 OF PUNNAYOORKULAM VILLAGE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, DTD. 20.04.2015.

¶21

P3A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPOSED ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL BUILDING.

¶22

P4A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-2603/15 DTD. 29.04.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J

¶28

WPC No.14385 of 2015

¶29

Dated this the 21^st day of July, 2015

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Ext.P4 order rejecting the petitioners'

¶32

application for building permit is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶33

The petitioner is the owner in possession of

¶34

about 32 cents of land in Sy.No.213/6 of Punnayoorkulam Village. In the property, the petitioner intends to construct an English Medium School having a plinth area of 275 sq.m. and the petitioner submitted an application for building permit before the first respondent which was rejected by Ext.P4 on the ground that the land is classified as nanja as per revenue records without

¶35

considering the physical nature of the property.

¶36

Arguments have been heard.

¶37

The decision of this Court in Mohammed

¶38

Abdul Basheer C.P. v State of Kerala and

¶39

WPC No.14385/2015 2

¶40

another (2012(3) KLT 86) lays down the principle that the present position of the land has to be taken into consideration and on ascertaining these facts, permission can be granted for construction.

¶41

It is settled position that the applicant can choose the best land suited for construction ( Sunil v Killimangalam-Panjal 5^th Ward Nellulpadaka Samooham 2012(4) KLT 511). Only if there is cultivation presently then it will be considered as cultivating paddy field so as to attract the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules.

¶42

In Jalaja Dileep v Revenue Divisional

¶43

Officer (2012(3) KLT 333) this Court observed that the description in the title deed or in revenue records will not be crucial if the property is reclaimed already. The aforesaid legal position settled by this Court escaped the attention of the authorities while rejecting the petitioner's application.

¶44

WPC No.14385/2015 3

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention also to the decision of this Court in Adani Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai v. State of Kerala and Others [2014 (1) KLT 774] wherein it was held that an authority which has been conferred with the functions of preparing a data bank with the details of the cultivable paddy field and wetland within its area of jurisdiction with the aid of modern technology and institutions of science and technology under sub-clause (1) of sub-section (4) of Section 5 could at any time, look into the ground realities and decide upon the suitability for prospective cultivation of such lands. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 is quashed.

¶46

The respondent Panchayat is directed to conduct a local inspection of the property regarding the present lie as well as the condition of the property of the petitioner and surrounding properties. The respondents are also directed to re-

¶47

WPC No.14385/2015 4

¶48

consider the application and pass orders granting permit, if they are satisfied that the land in the present form is unfit for paddy cultivation. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶49

sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶50

css/ true copy

¶51

PS.TO JUDGE

Aminu v. the Secretary, Punnayurkulam Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aminu v. the Secretary, Punnayurkulam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.P.Joseph Vs M.Moidunnikutty

Krishnakumar Vs Subair

A.S.Anilkumar Vs Union of India

K.O.Paul Vs Kaiparamba Grama Panchayath

V.P.Philipose Vs Mallapuzhasserry Grama Panchayath

P.P.Joy Vs Kodassery Grama Panchayath