Allowed

Subha K v. the Cheekkode Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC1 Jul 2015WP(C)/17191/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a building permit application for a commercial building on land recorded as paddy field. The Court allowed the petition, directing the Panchayath to inspect the land and grant the permit if not suitable for cultivation.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P1 quashed; respondent directed to conduct local inspection and reconsider application within two months to pass positive orders.

Subha K Vs the Cheekkode Grama Panchayath — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2015/10TH ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 17191 of 2015 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SUBHA K., AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.MANI M., MUNDAKKAL P.O., CHEEKKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE CHEEKKODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNDAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 640.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY, THE CHEEKKODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUNDAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 640.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

msv/

¶15

WP(C).No. 17191 of 2015 (Y)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5-3-2015.

¶19

P2 : TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER.

¶20

P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK OF THE CHEEKKODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶21

P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE FAIR VALUE REGISTER CONCERNING R.S.NO.37/8 OF MUTHUVALLUR VILLAGE.

¶22

P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2177/1995 OF THE S.R.O., AREACODE.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Ms v/

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶29

-------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 17191 of 2015

¶30

Dated this the 1^st day of July, 2015

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Ext.P1, by which the petitioner's application for building permit was rejected, is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶33

The petitioner is the owner of a property comprised in Re.Sy.No.37/8 of Muthuvallur Village within the local limits of the respondent panchayath. She submitted an application for building permit for construction of a commercial building, which was rejected by the 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P1 on the ground that as per the revenue records, the description of the properties is nilam; and therefore, building permit cannot be issued. According to the petitioner, the said land was converted more than 40 years back and the areacanut trees, aging 30 years, are standing in the properties. She produced Ext.P2 photographs to substantiate her contention. She

¶34

..2..

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 17191 of 2015

¶36

further points out that in Ext.P3, which is the copy of the extract of data bank, and in Ext.P5 document dated 13.06.1995, the property is described as converted land; and in Ext.P4, which is the relevant page of the fair value register, it is stated that the property is a residential plot with vehicular access. Therefore, according to the petitioner, Ext.P1 is illegal and liable to be quashed.

¶37

Arguments have been heard.

¶38

The learned Standing Counsel for the

¶39

respondent panchayath, inviting my attention to Ext.P1 communication, would submit that the property of the petitioner is a paddy field. However, Ext.P2 photographs shows the present nature of the property and it appears from Ext.P2 that the property is not fit for paddy cultivation.

¶40

The decision of this Court in Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P. V State of Kerala and another (2012 (3) KLT 86) lays down the principle that the present position of the land has to be taken into

¶41

..3..

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 17191 of 2015

¶43

consideration and on ascertaining these facts, permission can be granted for construction.

¶44

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

¶45

7. In Jalaja Dileep v Revenue Divisional Officer

¶46

(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 positions settled by this Court escaped the attention of the authorities while rejecting the petitioner's application.

¶47

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P1 is quashed.

¶48

W.P.(C) No. 17191 of 2015

¶49

..4..

¶50

The respondent panchayath 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 reconsider the application and pass positive orders granting building permit after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard if the respondents are satisfied that the land in its present form is not suitable for paddy cultivation. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶51

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶52

bka/-

Subha K v. the Cheekkode Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subha K v. the Cheekkode 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

Narayanan Namboothiri Vs B Sreenivas

Unnikrishnan Vs Noufal

Rajesh T Vs the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Peter Vs Karukutty Grama Panchayath

P.K.Sunil Kumar Vs the Controller of Technical Examinations

Shajahan Vs the Ponnani Municipality