Allowed

K P Roy v. Secretary, Kollengode Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC6 Aug 2015WP(C)/17391/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Panchayath's rejection of a building permit was illegal for relying on outdated revenue records without inspecting the land's current condition. The Court ruled that reclaimed garden land is not paddy land and directed the Panchayath to grant the permit after local inspection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; respondent directed to conduct local inspection and reconsider application for building permit within two months.

K P Roy Vs Secretary, Kollengode 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

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/15TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 17391 of 2015 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

K.P.ROY, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.PAAPPU, KOTTAKURISSI, PAYALOOR P.O., KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR SMT.ARATHI KARUNAKARAN SMT.PARVATHY S.KRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

SECRETARY, KOLLENGODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD- 678 506.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.S.KANNAN, S.C ADV. SRI.N.ANAND, S.C

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Msd.

¶14

WP(C).No. 17391 of 2015 (Y)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶17

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2014

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶19

------------------------------------------NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶24

W.P.(C) No. 17391 of 2015

¶25

Dated this the 6^th day of August, 2015

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

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

¶28

The petitioner is the owner in possession of an

¶29

extent of property comprised in Re.Sy.No.409/1 of Kollengode No.2 Village within the local limits of the respondent panchayath. The petitioner submitted an application for building permit, which was rejected by the respondent as per Ext.P1 for the reason that the land is categorized as 'nilam' in the revenue records. The petitioner alleges that the said property is owned by the petitioner for the last so many years and no cultivation of any means is possible in the said land. According to the petitioner, the respondent has no right to reject the application without enquiring into the present condition of the land and the act of the respondent in rejecting the

¶30

..2..

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 17391 of 2015

¶32

application of the petitioner without conducting any physical examination of the land was purely mechanical. Therefore, according to the petitioner, Ext.P1 is beyond jurisdiction, illegal and liable to be quashed.

¶33

Arguments have been heard.

¶34

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, inviting my attention to Ext.P1, submitted that the property is included as paddy land and the petitioner has not produced any record to show that permission was obtained under the KLU Act.

¶35

The decision of this Court in Mohammed Abdul

¶36

Basheer C.P. V State of Kerala and another [2012 (3)

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

..3..

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 17391 of 2015

¶41

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.

¶42

In Jalaja Dileep v Revenue Divisional Officer

¶43

[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.

¶44

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 land and wetland within its area of jurisdiction with the aid of modern technology and institutions of science and technology under sub-clause (1)

¶45

..4..

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 17391 of 2015

¶47

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.

¶48

As the petitioner's property is lying as garden land at present and the same has been reclaimed in 2008, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P1 is quashed.

¶49

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 respondent is also directed to reconsider the application and pass positive orders granting building permit after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard if the respondent is 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.

¶50

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶51

bka/-

K P Roy v. Secretary, Kollengode Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K P Roy v. Secretary, Kollengode 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

Lehtakumari @ Letha Vs the Managing Director

Jim Jose Vs Corporation of Kochi

T.P.Dasan Vs State of Kerala

Jacob v.Thomas Vs Mavelikara Municipality and Another

Thankachi Sadanandan Vs Sajeev B

Abdu Rahiman P Vs the Regional Transport Authority