Allowed

T.R.Vijayakumar v. Aymanam Grama Panchayath (Special Grade)

Kerala HC27 Jul 2015WP(C)/7680/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed this writ petition challenging the rejection of a building permit application. It held that revenue record descriptions like 'nilam' are not final if the land is not actually cultivating land. The impugned order was quashed, and the panchayath was directed to inspect the property and grant necessary permissions within two months if the land is found unsuitable for paddy cultivati

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the building permit application was quashed. The respondent panchayath was directed to conduct a local inspection and reconsider the application, granting a positive order

T.R.Vijayakumar Vs Aymanam Grama Panchayath (Special Grade) — 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

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2015/5TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 7680 of 2015 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

T.R.VIJAYAKUMAR,

¶8

S/O. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR, THADATHUMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, THIRUNAKKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. AYMANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE), AYMANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 015, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, AYMANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE), AYMANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 015.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Prv/2.

¶16

W.P.(C).NO. 7680 OF 2015 (H)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1 : TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.10439350 DTD.13.2.2015.

¶20

EXT.P2 : TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1.

¶21

EXT.P3(A)&(B):TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NOS.34701 DTD.4.10.14 AND 33963 DTD.13.2.2015.

¶22

EXT.P3(C)&(D):TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF TRANSLATION OF EXTS.P3(A) & P3(B).

¶23

EXT.P4 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.A1-1137/15 DTD.3.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P5(A): ENGLISH TRANSLATION THE ORDER BEARING NO.A1-1137/15 DTD.3.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DATA BANK.

¶27

EXT.P6(A): ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P6, THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DATA BANK.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv/2.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 7680 of 2015

¶34

Dated this the 27^th day of July, 2015

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Ext.P5, by which the petitioner's application for building permit was rejected, is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶37

The petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 0.2977 hectares of property comprised in Re.Sy.No.376/1/2, 0.00579 hectares of property comprised in Re.Sy.No.376/18 and 0.0256 hectares comprised in Re.Sy.No.376/20/2 in Re Survey Block No.7 of Aymanam Village in Kottayam District within the local limits of the respondent panchayath. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application for building permit, which was rejected by the respondent panchayath as per Ext.P5 stating that the properties comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.376/1/2 & 376/18 are described as 'nilam'. According to the petitioner, though the properties are described as 'nilam', they are dry lands. He further points out that in Ext.P1 possession certificate,

¶38

..2..

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 7680 of 2015

¶40

the properties comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.376/18 & 376/1/2 in Block No.7 of Aymanam Village is 'nilam' whereas the adjoining property comprised in Re.Sy.No.376/20/2 in the same certificate is described as 'dry land'. Therefore, according to the petitioner, Ext.P5 is against the dictum laid down by this Court and is liable to be quashed.

¶41

Arguments have been heard.

¶42

The learned counsel for the respondent

¶43

panchyath opposed the application on the reason that the properties are described as 'nilam' in the revenue records.

¶44

The decision of this Court in Mohammed Abdul

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

..3..

¶48

W.P.(C) No. 7680 of 2015

¶49

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.

¶50

In Jalaja Dileep v Revenue Divisional Officer

¶51

[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.

¶52

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)

¶53

..4..

¶54

W.P.(C) No. 7680 of 2015

¶55

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.

¶56

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 is quashed.

¶57

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.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶60

bka/-

T.R.Vijayakumar v. Aymanam Grama Panchayath (Special Grade)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.R.Vijayakumar v. Aymanam Grama Panchayath (Special Grade)

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

Thomas Joseph Vs Jancy Sabu

Syed Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

Jose P.T. Vs State of Kerala

Sabu Mamman Vs the Secretary

Auto Riskchaw Thozhilali Union (B.M.S) Vs District Collector, Alappuzha

Rajkumar K. Vs M/S.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited