Jojo & Shanti v. Chazhoor Grama Panchayat represented by its Secretary & Secretary, Chazhoor Grama Panchayat

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** **FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/21ST PHALGUNA, 1937** ## **WP(C).No. 5894 of 2016 (J)** ## **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **---------------** **1. JOJO, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.CHARLIE, KUNNUMKADATH HOUSE, PUTHANPEEDIKA, THRISSUR.** **2. SHANTI, W/O.JOJO, KUNNUMKADATH HOUSE, PUTHANPEEDIKA, THRISSUR.** **BY ADVS.SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.) SMT.P.R.REENA** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. CHAZHOOR GRAMAPANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHAZHOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680571** **2. SECRETARY, CHAZHOOR GRAMAPANCHAYAT, CHAZHOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680571** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 5894 of 2016 (J)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KURUMPILAVU VILLAGE OFFICE DT.21.8.15** **EXT.P2- PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY** **EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ENTRY IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN THE AFOREMENTIONED SURVEY NUMBERS, I.E., 535, 536, 539, 554 AND 556 IN THE DATA BANK PREPARED IN KURUMPILAVU VILLAGE** **EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPTS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DT.16.4.15** **EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT DT.10.9.15** **EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).34672/15 DT.29.1.16** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL** ## _**OKB**_ **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## K.HARILAL, J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ## W.P.(C) No.5894 of 2016 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dated this the 11[th] day of March, 2016 JUDGMENT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The petitioners are the owners in possession of 6 Acres of land comprised in Survey Nos.554/2, 539/2, 536/2, 556/2, 535/3 in Kurumpilavu Village, Thrissur District, within the limits of the 1[st] respondent Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioners, the said property is a dry land with large number of coconut trees, arecanut trees etc., and the actual lie of the land is evidenced by Ext.P2 photographs. The said property was one converted before 30 years. The Local Level Monitoring Committee has found that the said property does not fall within the purview of paddy land. So, the petitioners have constructed a commercial building in the said property in connection with poultry business and filed the application seeking numbering of the building. But **WP(C).5894/16-J :2:** the 2[nd] respondent rejected the said application by Ext.P5 stating that the said property is described as wetland in the Revenue Records and commercial occupancy cannot be allowed in the said property. The legality and propriety of the reasonings, whereby the petitioners' application seeking numbering of the building stands rejected, are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Grama Panchayat. 3. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the application seeking building permit was rejected on the basis of mere entries in the Revenue Records without considering the actual lie of the land. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel, going by Ext.P5, it is seen that the numbering of the building was rejected on the sole reason that the description of **WP(C).5894/16-J :3:** the property in the Revenue Records is wetland. Ext.P2 photographs would show that the said property is a pucca dry land with coconut trees, arecanut trees, etc., as contended by the petitioners. The genuineness of the said photographs is not challenged in this writ petition. 4. In various decisions, this Court considered the question whether building permit can be rejected on the basis of mere entries in the Revenue Records and held that the application for building permit cannot be rejected on the basis of mere entries in the Revenue Records. 5. In Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009 (3) KLT 899] it was held as follows: “The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, deals with the conversion of lands which are wetland or paddy fields, on the basis of actual fact situation and not depending on the description of the property in the revenue **WP(C).5894/16-J :4:** records. The definition of the terms 'paddy field' and 'wetland' in the said Act is sufficient material to hold that the said statute operates on the basis of the facts as they exist on ground realities and not on any quality or type of land, depending on its description in the title document.” 6. Moreover, in Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P. v. State of Kerala and Another [2012 (3) KLT 86], this Court held that the present lie of the land can be taken into consideration while granting permission to make construction. In Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer 2012 (3) KLT 333] it was further held that the description in title deeds or Revenue Records are no material if the land had already been reclaimed, before the commencement of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. 7. In Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2010 (2) KLT 617 (DB)], this Court held that mere description of the property in the revenue records by itself may **WP(C).5894/16-J :5:** not be conclusive and may not estop a party from producing materials to show otherwise. 8. The sum and substance of the principles laid down in all the above decisions is that merely on the basis of the description of the land in the Revenue Records, building permit cannot be denied in contravention to the ground realities as regards the actual lie of the land. 9. In the light of the above decisions, obviously, it can be inferred that the application was rejected mechanically on the basis of mere entries in the Revenue Records without considering the ground reality. Therefore, the application requires reconsideration, after considering the ground reality, i.e., the actual lie of the land on the ground. 10. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P5 will stand set aside. The 2[nd] respondent is directed to conduct a site inspection in the said property and pass orders afresh on the basis of the actual lie of the land, **WP(C).5894/16-J :6:** to be found in the site inspection, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, notwithstanding the entries in the Revenue Records, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- K. HARILAL, JUDGE okb.