Allowed

Haneefa.K v. the Parappanangadi Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC11 Aug 2015WP(C)/5953/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala allowed a petition challenging the rejection of a building permit and regularisation for reclaimed land. The Court held that ground reality and current land suitability matter more than revenue record descriptions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed. The Panchayat is directed to inspect the property and re-consider the applications for regularisation and numbering, granting the permit within two months if satisfied.

Haneefa.K Vs the Parappanangadi Grama Panchayat — 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 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/20TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 5953 of 2015 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

-----------------

¶8

HANEEFA.K, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, KODASSERY HOUSE, PUTHARIKKAL PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

-----------------------

¶12

1. THE PARAPPANANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY,

¶14

PARAPPANANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 5953 of 2015 (T)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.2.2015.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J

¶27

WPC No.5953 of 2015

¶28

Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2015

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The orders rejecting the petitioner's applications for numbering the building and for regularisation are under challenge in this writ petition.

¶31

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.866 cents of property in Re.Sy.No.229/3 of Neduva Village, Parappanangadi. He has submitted Ext.P1 application for building permit, but the same was not considered since the property was described as 'nanja' in the revenue records. According to the petitioner, the property is not suitable for paddy cultivation and it is reclaimed long back. The adjacent properties are already developed and hence, it is not reasonable to insist the petitioner to cultivate in his small extent of land. It is the only property for the petitioner and his family to construct a residential house.

¶32

The Division Bench of this Court held that while

¶33

WPC No.5953/2015 2

¶34

issuing building permit, the Secretary has to consider the ground reality/actual lie of the property and building permit cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the description of the property is 'nilam' in the records maintained by the village. There is no bar at all for issuing permit in a land which is reclaimed and the same is unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Since the petitioner has no house for residence, he has constructed a small house for residence and requested for regularisation. But

¶35

it was not granted. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶36

Arguments have been heard.

¶37

The decision of this Court in Mohammed

¶38

Abdul Basheer C.P. v State of Kerala and another

¶39

(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 to construct a house.

¶40

It is settled position that the applicant can choose the best land suited for construction of his house

¶41

WPC No.5953/2015 3

¶42

( Sunil v Killimangalam-Panjal 5^th Ward Nellulpadaka

¶43

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.

¶44

In Jalaja Dileep v Revenue Divisional 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.

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

¶46

WPC No.5953/2015 4

¶47

(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.

¶48

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-consider the applications for regularisation and for numbering the building and pass orders granting permit, if they are satisfied that the land, where the petitioner has constructed the residential building, in the present form is unfit for paddy cultivation; if the same are otherwise in order. 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

P.S.TO JUDGE

Haneefa.K v. the Parappanangadi Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haneefa.K v. the Parappanangadi 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

K.Shajikumar Vs Divisional Manager

Thankamani Vs Bindhu

Suresh Kumar M.K Vs Secretary,Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

K.K. Ramachandran Vs Peravoor Grama Panchayath

N.Chandran Vs Union of India

Joseph P.H. Vs Pavaratty Grama Panchayat