Petitioner challenged rejection of his building permit application as the land was described as 'nilam' in records. High Court held authorities must consider current physical status, not just revenue descriptions, and allowed the petition.
Ext.P1 quashed. Panchayath directed to inspect and grant building permit within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2015/24TH ASHADHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 17891 of 2014 (J)
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. K.V. RAMAN NAIR, PARAYIL, RAM NIVAS, 28/1927B, THONDAYADU BYE PASS, NELLIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE FEROKE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FEROKE, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT-673 631.
2. THE SECRETARY,
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 17891 of 2014 (J)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Ms v/
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
W.P.(C) No. 17891 of 2014
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2015
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P1, by which the petitioner's application for building permit was rejected, is under challenge in this writ petition.
..2..
W.P.(C) No. 17891 of 2014
building permit cannot be considered. The petitioner points out that the said property is situated on the side of Kozhikode - Palakkad Highway; and the property is surrounded by several commercial buildings, which are constructed with the permission of competent authorities. He further alleges that even after rejecting the application for building permit, now there is an attempt to demolish the temporary shed erected in the property of the petitioner. According to him, there are other automobile showrooms in the neighboring properties, which have been constructed after obtaining building permits from the respondents. To substantiate his contention, he has produced Ext.P2 series of photograph, which shows the present nature of the property. Therefore, according to the petitioner, Ext.P1 illegal and liable to be quashed.
..3..
W.P.(C) No. 17891 of 2014
such conversion is produced before the panchayath, they cannot issue any licence or building permit. According to them, such a conversion can be done only in accordance with the statutory provisions in the Act. Therefore, according to them, as the land is admittedly a paddy land, permission cannot be granted for construction.
[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.
( 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
..4..
W.P.(C) No. 17891 of 2014
the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules.
[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.
W.P.(C) No. 17891 of 2014
..5..
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.P1 is quashed.
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.
Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE
bka/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a building permit application should be rejected merely because revenue records describe the land as 'nilam' when the present physical condition is suitable for construction.
Whether the Panchayath authority was justified in refusing permission for construction on land described as paddy land.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P. V State of Kerala and anotherReferred¶42
Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P. V State of Kerala and another [2012 (3) KLT 86]
Sunil v Killimangalam-Panjal 5th Ward Nellulpadaka SamoohamReferred¶44
Sunil v Killimangalam-Panjal 5th Ward Nellulpadaka Samooham [2012 (4) KLT 511]
Jalaja Dileep v Revenue Divisional OfficerReferred¶49
Jalaja Dileep v Revenue Divisional Officer [2012(3) KLT 333]
Adani Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai v. State of Kerala and OthersReferred¶51
Adani Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai v. State of Kerala and Others [2014 (1) KLT 774]
Kunhiraman Nair
The Feroke Grama Panchayath
The Secretary, Feroke Grama Panchayath
A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
