Niji Ismayil, Vs Peermade Grama Panchayath

Shri. Joice George, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.C No.11580 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

2025:KER:24296

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the rejection of application submitted by the petitioner for building permit by the respondent Panchayat. The only reason mentioned in the order rejecting the application which is Ext.P3 is that, the property on which the residential building sought to be constructed is a plantation and therefore the construction cannot be permitted. Challenging Ext.P3, this writ petition is submitted.

¶24

2 . Heard, Sri.Soyuz P.K, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Joice George, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Panchayat and Smt. Deepa V, the learned Government Pleader for the State.

¶25

3 . The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the stand taken by the respondents that, the petitioner cannot be permitted to construct a building in the said property, since the property being a plantation, cannot be considered as legally sustainable

¶26

W.P.C No.11580 of 2025

¶27

4

¶28

2025:KER:24296

¶29

as the position of law in this regard is covered in his favour as per Ext.P4 judgment. It is pointed out that, even if the property is exempted under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, being a plantation, that will not preclude the petitioner from enjoying the property, by utilizing the same for his beneficial purposes. The only consequence is that, in case the petitioner uses the said property for any non-exempted purposes, it will be open for the authorities concerned to initiate proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, in respect of the extent of property which was utilized for non-exempted purposes.

¶30

4 . On going through the observations made by this

¶31

Court in Ext.P4, I find that the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner. In Ext.P4, after referring to the decisions of this Court in Mathew K. Jacob and Another V. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority [2018 (4) KLT 913], District Collector v. Sajith Lal [2023 KLT OnLine 1225]

¶32

and Elias T.V and Others v. Sub Collector, Wayanad and others [2019 (2) KLT 391, this Court specifically observed that,

¶33

W.P.C No.11580 of 2025

¶34

5

¶35

2025:KER:24296

¶36

nothing would enable the Panchayat to deny a building permit in the property which is described as plantation. I am in full agreement with the view taken by this Court.

¶37

In such circumstance, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P3 with a direction to the 2 nd respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit and to grant the same, if it is otherwise in order, irrespective of the fact that the property is a plantation. It is clarified that, this Court has not entered into any finding regarding the consequence of the utilization of the property for constructing a residential building. The application shall be considered by the 2 nd respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

rpk

¶42

W.P.C No.11580 of 2025

¶43

6