Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition disposed of; directions issued for ins...

Ajmal Safeer & Ibrahim v. Ponmala Grama Panchayat

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).No.16545/12
Neutral Citation:W.P.(C).No.16545/12

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date
2014-06-25
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition disposed of. Petitioners to move the Local Level Monitoring Committee for inspection within two weeks. The Committee shall inspect within one month; based on its findings regarding cultivability and possible deletion from the draft data bank, the Secretary shall take up fresh consideration of the permit within a further month. If the land is found not to be arable, appropriate action to delete it from the draft data bank shall be taken and the petition shall be disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition
Petition disposed of; directions issued for inspection by Local Level Monitoring Committee and possible deletion from the draft data bank, with fresh consideration by the secretary after receipt of the committee’s report.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Ajmal Safeer
  • Ibrahim

Respondents

  • Ponmala Grama Panchayat, Chappanangadi-PO, PIN 676503, Malappuram District represented by its Secretary
  • Secretary, Ponmala Grama Panchayat, Chappanagadi-PO, PIN 676503, Malappuram District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. P. Venugopal (Adv.)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. C. A. Chacko, Standing Counsel

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ajmal Safeer and Ibrahim, owners in possession of 28.66 cents of land in Re-survey No.45/12, Ponmala village, Tirur Taluk, Malappuram, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their building permit. The application was refused on the ground that the land has been included in the draft data bank as Nilam (paddy land/wet land), making construction impermissible under the Kerala Wet Land Act, 2008. The petitioners contended that mere inclusion in the draft data bank cannot by itself justify denial; the real nature of the land must be ascertained and verification made regarding any constructions on adjoining lands. They argued reclamation status and whether the land is cultivable; if the land is not cultivable, deletion from the draft data bank should be considered. The court cited Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2014 (1) KLT 774), which held that inclusion in the data bank alone is not a ground to reject a building permit and that the local level monitoring committee must inspect to determine cultivability and potential deletion. The judgment directs the petitioners to approach the local level monitoring committee for inspection within two weeks; upon report, the secretary should take fresh decision within a subsequent month. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, with directions for expeditious action after inspection.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Wet Land Act)Section 14, Wet Land Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Mere inclusion of land in the draft data bank cannot by itself justify denial of building permit; the real nature of the land must be ascertained.
  • Local Level Monitoring Committee should inspect and decide whether land is cultivable and whether it should be deleted from the draft data bank.
  • If land is not arable, appropriate action to delete from the data bank should be taken after inspection.
  • If reclamation occurred post-enactment, Section 14 of the Wet Land Act may bar permission to construct.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioners submitted that mere inclusion in the draft data bank cannot automatically bar construction; the true nature and cultivability of the land must be determined, and whether reclamation occurred must be clarified. They urged that the Local Level Monitoring Committee inspect the land, determine if it is cultivable, and delete it from the data bank if not, enabling fresh consideration of the permit. They relied on the Adani Infrastructure decision (2014 (1) KLT 774) to support the need for inspection and re-evaluation rather than automatic rejection.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argued that the land is recorded in the draft data bank as Nilam/paddy land under the Wet Land Act, which prohibits construction, and that the decision should follow the land’s status; the petition should be decided on verification of cultivability and possible deletion from the draft data bank after appropriate inspection.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala2014 (1) KLT 774PositiveCited to support that inclusion in the data bank alone cannot justify denial of a building permit; the land’s true nature must be ascertained and inspection may lead to deletion from the data bank.

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 Ajmal Safeer & Ibrahim v. Ponmala Grama Panchayat 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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/4TH ASHADHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 16545 of 2012 (P) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- 1. AJMAL SAFEER, - S/O ALIYAPPU, PALANTHODI HOUSE, CHERANI, KARUVAMBRUM-PO ERNAD TALUK, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. IBRAHIM, - S/O MUHAMMED, AKKARATHODI HOUSE, PAPPINIPARA-PO IRUMBUZHI, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): - ------------------- 1. PONMALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHAPPANANGADI-PO, PIN:676503, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, PONMALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHAPPANANGADI-PO PIN:676 503, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.16545/12 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : - EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO:2707/2010 OF THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, MALAPPURAM ALONG WITH POSSESSION CERTIFICATE AND SKETCH. - EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS. - EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE/ORDER VIDE NO:A4-2551/12 DATED 30.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. - EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P(C)NO.7630/2012 DATED 4.6.2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R2(A):TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENTS. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== W.P.(C). No.16545 OF 2012 ==========================** Dated this the 25[th] day of June, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** It is the rejection of the application for building permit submitted by the petitioners who are the owners in possession of 28.66 cents of land in Re-survey No.45/12 of Ponmala village in Tirur Taluk that constrained them to file the captioned writ petition. That application was rejected as per Ext.P3 assigning the reason that the land in question has been included in the draft data bank as 'Nilam'. It is further stated therein that in such circumstances, permission to effect construction in the said property could not be granted. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent in this writ petition. It is stated therein that the land in question has been included in the draft data bank as 'paddy land' and **W.P.(C).16545/12** 2 in such circumstances, by virtue of the provisions under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short the 'Wet Land Act') permission for carrying out construction in the said property could not be granted. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent would reveal that the land in question was already reclaimed. At the same time, it is not discernible from the pleadings in the writ petition as to when such reclamation was effected. Needless to say that if the reclamation was subsequent to the said enactment, by virtue of section 14 of the Wet Land Act, permission for carrying out construction could not be granted. The specific contention of the petitioners is that the land in question was already reclaimed and it is not cultivable. In the decision in **Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2014 (1) KLT 774]** , it was held by this Court that the mere fact that the land in question is included in the draft data bank by itself could not be a reason for rejecting an application for building permit. It was further **W.P.(C).16545/12** 3 held therein that the real nature of the land has to be ascertained and the question whether the constructions were effected in the adjoining lands has also to be verified. At the same time, if the land is included in the draft data bank and if the contention of the petitioners is that the land in question is not cultivable that question is to be decided by the local level monitoring committee after conducting inspection. If on such inspection it is found that the land is not arable necessarily the authorities have to take appropriate action to delete the land in question from the draft data bank. In such circumstances, it is for the petitioners to approach the local level monitoring committee to enable the committee to conduct an inspection and to decide on the said issue. Subject to the outcome of such inspection, the petitioners can pursue the application before the secretary of the panchayat in case the report is in their favour. In such circumstances, the petitioners are left at liberty to move the local level monitoring committee by filing a proper petition. In case the petitioners file such a petition within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this **W.P.(C).16545/12** 4 judgment, the local level monitoring committee shall conduct an inspection into the property in question expeditiously, at any rate, within a further period of one month from the date of receipt of such a petition. After conducting such an inspection, the local level monitoring committee shall take a decision on the aforesaid aspects as to whether the land in question is cultivable or not and shall communicate the decision to the secretary of the panchayat. On getting such a report from the local level monitoring committee and subject to the decision, the secretary shall take up the application for fresh consideration and orders thereon pass appropriate expeditiously, at any rate, within a further period of one month. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **W.P.(C).16545/12** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT** **W.P.(C).16545/12** 6 **September, 2010**