High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-11-14Writ petition disposed of; no costs.

Abu, S/o Pakku v. Ulliyeri Grama Panchayath & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 11343 of 2016 (P)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2016-11-14
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of. Ext.P6 set aside to finalise the application; Panchayat to consider the building permit de hors the data bank’s wetland designation and to complete the process with notice to the petitioner within two months from certified copy.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abu, S/o Pakku

Respondents

Ulliyeri Grama Panchayath, Ulliyeri P.O., Kozhikode District
The Village Officer, Ulliyeri, Kozhikode District
The Agricultural Officer, Ulliyeri, Kozhikode District
Local Level Monitoring Committee, Ulliyeri Grama Panchayath

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.K.P.Sudheer
• Sri.Arun Mathew Vadakkan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.P.R.Sreejith
• Sri.M.Promodh Kumar
• Sri.Renil Anto

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Abu, S/o Pakku, seeks a building permit for development of two parcels of land in Ulliyeri Village, Kozhikode district. He had applied for a permit but was rejected, prompting this writ petition (WP(C) No. 11343 of 2016). Earlier, Ext.P4 directed the Panchayat to reconsider the decision; on re‑consideration, Ext.P6 again refused the permit, reportedly because the petitioner had not furnished a copy of the data bank as directed. The factual background shows two survey numbers: 141/5 (12.15 cents) described as garden land and 141/4 (12¼ cents) described as nilam in the draft data bank at the time of the Paddy Land Act’s 2008 entry into force. The data bank indicates extensive paddy land in 141/4, with the entire extent not included in the data bank, while agricultural and village officers report the land to be dry land with coconut trees about 30 years old. The Court emphasizes that decisions cannot rely solely on sale deed descriptions; it requires evaluation of revenue records and physical lie of the land. It directs that the petitioner obtain a change of user under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU Order) from the District Collector/RDO, and after such conversion, apply for fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act. Importantly, the court directs the Panchayat to consider the building permit de hors the data bank’s wetland designation and to finalize the matter within two months from certified copy. The writ petition is disposed of with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Paddy Land Act)Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order)Clause (6) of the KLU OrderAct 28 of 2008 (Data Bank)Kerala Land Tax Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he sought a building permit for the two survey numbers; ext P4 directed reconsideration and the subsequent Ext P6 denial was unjustified because the data bank (under Act 28 of 2008) was not fully applicable to the subject land and because the physical nature of the land (dry land with coconut trees) was not properly assessed. He asserts that the sale deed (Exhibit P1) shows an existing structure, and that the land should be treated in light of actual use rather than the data bank’s classification. He prays for processing the permit after appropriate land-use conversion under the KLU Order and subsequent fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act as necessary.

Contentions of Respondents

The Panchayat respondents contend that the land lies within a wetland/paddy land regime per the data bank and that the visible current use and statutory classification justify withholding the permit without a formal land-use conversion. They rely on the data bank and on the procedural requirement that any change of user must be granted by the District Collector/RDO under the KLU Order. They point to the Agricultural Officer and Village Officer reports indicating that the land is not included in the data bank or is categorized as wet land, and emphasize that the final decision must conform to statutory classifications and the data bank’s records.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector	2015 (3) KLT 182	Positive	Cited to support that change of user under the KLU Order must be sought via an application to the District Collector/RDO.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath v. Mariumma	2015(2) KLT 516	Positive	Cited to support that after conversion of user, one can apply for fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act.
WP(C) No. 35612/2005	WP(C) 35612/2005	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P4 judgment; referenced as background in the context of limits on data-bank reliance.
WP(C) No. 22482/2015	WP(C) 22482/2015	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P7 judgment; cited for background/context; not relied upon as a binding proposition in the decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abu, S/o Pakku v. Ulliyeri Grama Panchayath & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/23RD KARTHIKA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 11343 of 2016 (P)** ## **------------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S) :** **-------------------------** **ABU, S/O. PAKKU, AGED 56 YEARS, SHAHANA MANZIL, NORAVANA MEETHAL, ULLIYERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 620.** ## **BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** - **----------------------------** **1. ULLIYERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH ULLIYERI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 620, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ULLIYERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 620.** **3. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ULLIYERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 620.** ## *** ADDITIONAL R4 IMPLEADED** **4. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, ULLIYERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, ULLIYERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673 620.** - **ADDITIONAL R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14.11.2016 IN I.A.NO. 9244 OF 2016** **R1 BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH** ## **SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR** ## **R2 TO R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RENIL ANTO** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. ## **WP(C).No. 11343 of 2016 (P)** ## **-----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED REGISTERED AS DOC.NO.1638/2007 DATED 23.07.2007 ON NADUVANNUR SRO.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A3-297/14-15 DATED 23.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS (2 NOS.) OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2015 IN WP(C) NO.35612/2005 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK PREPARED UNDER ACT 28 OF 2008 IN ULLIYERI DESOM.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A3/6113/16 DATED 19.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 03.08.2015 IN WP(C) NO.22482/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT R3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE SATELLITE IMAGE.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** -----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 11343 of 2016 (P) -----------------------------------------Dated: 14[th] November, 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is concerned with 12.15 cents in Re-Survey No.141/5 (old Sy.No.110/1) and 12¼ in Re-Survey No.141/4 (old Sy.No.155/3) of Ulliyeri Village in Koyilandy Taluk. The petitioner intended construction of a commercial building in the said property and applied for building permit. On rejection of the same, the petitioner was before this Court, in which Ext.P4 judgment was passed, directing reconsideration of the same. The reconsideration was made and the application was rejected again by Ext.P6, which, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayat would point out, is for the reason of the petitioner having not produced the copy of the data bank, as directed in Ext.P4. ## **W.P.(C) No. 11343/2016** **-2-** 2. The original rejection is seen from Ext.P2. It was found that 12.15 cents in Re-Survey No 141/5 was 'garden land'. However, with respect to the 12¼ cents in Re-Survey No. 141/4, it was shown a 'nilam' in the draft data bank also. The petitioner relies on Ext.P1, in the schedule of which the property purchased in ReSurvey No.141/5 is shown as having an existing building. Re-Survey no.141/4 is shown as converted land. 3. This Court cannot proceed on the basis of the description in the schedule to the sale deed and one has to look at the revenue records as also the lie and nature of the properties. The extract of the draft data bank is produced at Ext.P5, which indicates that in Re-Survey No.141/4, there is a total of 69.64 Ares of property, out of which 35.64 Ares is remaining as 'paddy land' at the time of preparation of the data bank, i.e. as on 2008 ## **W.P.(C) No. 11343/2016** **-3-** when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 ('Paddy Land Act' for short) came into force. It is not clear as to whether the 12¼ cents owned by the petitioner in Re-Survey No.141/4 is comprised in the paddy land as shown in the data bank. 4. In this context, this Court, by order dated 23.03.2016, directed the Village Officer to inspect the property and report on the same. The report is placed along with memo dated 24.06.2016. In the report of the Village Officer dated 15.06.2016, again it is stated that some properties in Re-Survey No.141/4 is still remaining as 'paddy land' and included in the data bank. However, the property belonging to the petitioner, i.e. 12¼ cents, on physical inspection was found to be lying as 'garden land' without any cultivation having been carried on for long years. ## **W.P.(C) No. 11343/2016** **-4-** 5. A further direction dated 04.07.2016 was issued by this Court, to the Agricultural Officer to inspect the property and file a report. An affidavit has been filed by the Agricultural Officer dated 04.08.2016. The Agricultural Officer inspected the property and identified the petitioner's property with the help of the Village Officer. It was found that, on inspection, the properties are lying as 'dry land' and coconut trees having age of around 30 years were found standing therein. It is also opined that the land would have been converted long prior to the coming into effect of the Paddy Land Act. 6. In such circumstance, what is required is only an application before the District Collector/RDO under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 ('KLU Order' for short) for change of user of the land as has been held in **Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector -** ## **W.P.(C) No. 11343/2016** **-5-** **2015 (3) KLT 182** . In the present case, going by the report of the Agricultural Officer that the land itself has not been included in the data bank; if the petitioner files an application under Clause (6) of the KLU Order, necessarily the RDO has to grant the conversion of user as sought for. After conversion of user the petitioner could also apply for fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act, assessing the land as garden land as has been held in **Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath V. Mariumma - 2015(2) KLT 516** . 7. However, considering the report of the Agricultural Officer and Village Office about the lie and nature of the land and that the entire extent of the property in the survey numbers has not been included in the data bank, the Panchayat shall consider the application for building prmit de hors the fact that in the Revenue records the property is recorded as 'wet ## **W.P.(C) No. 11343/2016** **-6-** land'. Ext.P6 is set aside to finalise the application; which shall be done with notice to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 14/11/16