Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; Ext.P1 quashed; direction to ...

Dr. Haseena Ashik v. Kozhikode Corporation and The Secretary, Kozhikode Corporation

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.13849 of 2014 (E)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date
2014-06-25
Court Decision / Holding
Ext.P1 (rejection of the building permit) is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the building-permit application afresh in light of the cited decisions and the surrounding land developments, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ext.P6 is also set aside.
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; Ext.P1 quashed; direction to reconsider afresh the building-permit application within six weeks; Ext.P6 set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Dr. Haseena Ashik

Respondents

  • The Kozhikode Corporation
  • The Secretary, Kozhikode Corporation

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri M. Krishnakumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri K. D. Babu, SC, Kozhikode Corporation

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Dr. Haseena Ashik, challenged the rejection of her application for a building permit (Ext. P1) on the ground that the land lies in a revenue-recorded paddy zone. She contends that the decision was not preceded by an inspection to ascertain the land’s real nature, and argues that the land has been reclaimed and surrounding lands have already been developed with residential/commercial buildings. Relying on Supreme Court and Kerala High Court authority—Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra, Padmini v. State of Kerala, and Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat—the petitioner contends that mere designation as paddy land should not automatically bar development, particularly where adjoining lands have been reclaimed and developed. The court acknowledges these authorities and holds that a paddy-land designation in itself cannot justify denying a building permit in such circumstances. It further cites Jafarkhan v. Kochumarakkar, 2012 (1) KLT 491, to illustrate the concept of a “glorified land owner” and the idea that non-cultivable land with adjacent development may justify altering the status quo. Consequently, the court finds Ext. P1 unsustainable and allows the petition, directing a fresh consideration of the building-permit application in light of the cited decisions and the property’s facts. Ext.P6 is set aside, and the second respondent is directed to decide afresh within six weeks.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • glorified land owner (as per Jafarkhan v. Kochumarakkar, 2012 (1) KLT 491)
  • paddy land owner could be regarded only as a glorified land owner without any return from his paddy land
  • mere designation of land as paddy land in revenue records cannot automatically bar development in exceptional circumstances

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submitted that Ext. P1, the order rejecting the building permit, was not issued after an inspection to ascertain the real nature of the land. She asserted that the land has been reclaimed and that adjoining lands have been developed, contradicting the paddy-land designation. Relying on Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 11 SCC 222, Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999) 3 KLT 465, and Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009) 3 KLT 899, she urged fresh consideration. She cited Jafarkhan v. Kochumarakkar (2012) 1 KLT 491 to support the notion that a paddy land owner may be treated as a “glorified land owner” in certain circumstances and should not be deprived of use of his property. The relief sought was to quash Ext. P1 and direct reconsideration of her application for a building permit.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued the building permit rejection was based on the land’s paddy-zone status. They contended that development permissions must be weighed against land-use classifications in revenue records, and the authorities should act in accordance with law and policy. However, the court ultimately found that mere paddy-field designation cannot, in all cases, justify denial and directed fresh consideration taking into account the surrounding developments and relevant precedents.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra2005 (11) SCC 222PositiveCited to argue that mere paddy-land designation cannot automatically defeat a building-permit application, supporting fresh consideration.
Padmini v. State of Kerala1999 (3) KLT 465PositiveCited as part of the jurisprudence allowing reconsideration where development may proceed despite paddy-land designation.
Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat2009 (3) KLT 899PositiveCited to support the view that paddy-land status does not automatically bar permissible development in certain factual contexts.
Jafarkhan v. Kochumarakkar2012 (1) KLT 491PositiveCited for the concept of a ‘glorified land owner’ and the principle that non-cultivable paddy land adjacent to reclaimed lands may warrant permitting development.

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 Dr. Haseena Ashik v. Kozhikode Corporation and The Secretary, Kozhikode Corporation 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. 13849 of 2014 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ DR. HASEENA ASHIK, AGED 46 YEARS D/O.P.ABDURAHIMAN, 9 B, BRIDGE TOWN APARTMENTS CHAKORATHUKULAM, WEST NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE-673011. BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE KOZHIKODE-673001. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE KOZHIKODE-673001. BY SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13849 of 2014 (E) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------ EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-5-2014 EXT.P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)7724/2014 DATED 3-4-2014 EXT.P3 COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DATED 31-7-1978 EXT.P4 COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 2-9-1985. ## RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL ---------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== W.P.(C). No.13849 OF 2014 ==========================** Dated this the 25[th] day of June, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of an application for building permit as per Ext.P1 on the ground that the land in question stands earmarked as paddy zone in the revenue records. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 11cents of property comprised in re-survey No.70/10C of Nellikode Village in Kozhikode Taluk and the application was submitted for constructing a residential building thereon. The specific contention of the petitioner is that before rejecting the said application as per Ext.P1, no inspection of the property in question was conducted for ascertaining its real nature. According to the petitioner, the land in question was reclaimed years back and all the adjoining lands were already reclaimed and residential/commercial buildings were also built thereon. In the said **W.P.(C).13849/14** 2 circumstances, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra** reported in [ **2005(11) SCC 222]** and decisions of this Court in **Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465]** and **Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009 (3) KLT 899]** it is contended that Ext.P1 is unsustainable and in the circumstances, the application for building permit requires fresh consideration. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. In view of the judicial pronouncements referred above, there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that merely because the land in question lies in an area earmarked as paddy field in the revenue records, that itself cannot be a reason for rejecting the application for building permit especially when the adjoining lands were already reclaimed and constructions were effected thereon. **W.P.(C).13849/14** 3 There cannot be any reason for compelling the petitioner to retain and maintain the land in question as a paddy field in such circumstances and in the contextual situation it is relevant to refer to a Division Bench decision of this Court in **Jafarkhan v. Kochumarakkar [2012** **(1) KLT 491]** . Going by the said decision in such circumstances, a paddy land owner could be regarded only as a glorified land owner without any return from his paddy land. If the land in question is not cultivable and the adjoining lands were already reclaimed and buildings were constructed thereon, there will not be any justification to deprive the petitioner the right to enjoy her property effectively and to compel her to retain it as a waste land. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P1 order cannot be sustained and the application submitted by the petitioner requires a fresh consideration in the light of the decisions referred (supra). To enable the second respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit afresh Ext.P6 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the application afresh, **W.P.(C).13849/14** 4 in accordance with law and taking into account the decisions referred (supra) and taking into account the nature of the property in question and also the adjoining properties and the developments effected thereon, expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **W.P.(C).13849/14** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **W.P.(C).13849/14** 6