High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-03-08Writ petition disposed of; Ext. P4 quashed; pet...

K. J. Mathew v. Pananchery Grama Panchayath

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 8563 of 2016 (U)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2016-03-08
Court Decision / Holding: Ext. P4 is set aside. The Panchayath is directed to conduct a site inspection of the property and consider the application afresh on the basis of the present lie of the land, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; Ext. P4 quashed; petitioner to be heard and the matter to be decided afresh by conducting a site inspection within one month from receipt of the judgment.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K. J. Mathew, aged 73 years, s/o Joseph, residing at Kuzhik kattu Myalil House, Pattikkad P.O., Thrissur District

Respondents

Pananchery Grama Panchayath, represented by its Secretary, Pattikkad P.O., Thrissur-680 652

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. C. Suresh Menon
• Sri. P. S. Appu
• Sri. A. R. Nimod

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. A. C. Devy

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, K. J. Mathew, seeks a building permit from Pananchery Grama Panchayath to construct a commercial building on a 0.0161 hectare plot (4 cents) of land described as Sy. No. 35/3 in Pananchery Village, Thrissur District. He asserts the land is dry land and not a paddy field or wetland, and therefore a building permit cannot be denied merely on account of the land being described as Nilam in revenue records. The Panchayath refused Ext. P4 on the ground that the possession certificate classifies the land as Nilam, arguing that such a description justifies denial under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petition relies on decisions that emphasize ground realities over documentary descriptors. The court cites Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P. v. State of Kerala, Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer, and Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat, noting that the statute operates on actual conditions on the ground, not mere titles or revenue descriptions. It also cites Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P. for the consideration of current land status. The court ultimately directs a site inspection to verify the land’s true nature, holds that Ext. P4 cannot stand, and orders the Panchayath to decide afresh, within one month, after affording the petitioner hearing.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, Sec. 3Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, Sec. 14

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that denial based on the Nilam description in the revenue records is untenable where the land’s current site conditions show it to be suitable for construction. He argues that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 governs conversion after its commencement; if the land has not been converted, Sec. 3 would not bar construction, and Ext. P4’s rationale is flawed. The petition requests quashing Ext. P4 and fresh consideration based on ground realities, not documentary labels, and preferably after a site inspection.

Contentions of Respondents

The Panchayath contends that the building permit cannot be granted because the land is described as Nilam in the possession certificate; the act’s restrictions apply where conversion has occurred, and revenue-record descriptions should inform decision-making. The respondent asserts that Ext. P4 reflects a legitimate refusal grounded in the land’s classification.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P. v. State of Kerala and another	2012 (3) KLT 86	Positive	Supports considering the land’s actual status/ground realities for permissions instead of relying solely on revenue descriptions.
Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2012 (3) KLT 333	Positive	Accepts that revenue-record descriptions are not conclusive; ground reality governs decisions.
Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat	2009 (3) KLT 899	Positive	Emphasizes that the Act operates on ground facts rather than documentary descriptions.
Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner	2010 (2) KLT 617 (DB)	Positive	Holds that mere revenue-record description may not be conclusive; other materials may establish true land status.

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 K. J. Mathew v. Pananchery Grama Panchayath 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.HARILAL** **TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/18TH PHALGUNA, 1937** **WP(C).No. 8563 of 2016 (U) ---------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **------------** **K.J.MATHEW, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT KUZHIKKATTU MYALIL HOUSE, PATTIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD** **RESPONDENT:** **----------** **PANANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR-680 652.** **BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 8563 of 2016 (U)** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANANCHERY VILLAGE TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28/7/2015.** **EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PANANCHERY DATED 8/3/2013.** **EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF DATA BANK DATED NIL.** **EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 4/12/2015.** **EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF FEW PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICTING THE LIE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DATED NIL.** **EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.26449/2015 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 7/9/2015.** //true copy// P.S. to Judge **K. HARILAL, J. -----------------------------------------------------W.P. (C) No.8563 of 2016-U -----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of March, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the titleholder in possession of the landed property having an extent of 0.0161 Hectares (4 cents) comprised in Sy.No.35/3 in Pananchery Village in Thrissur District within the limits of the respondent/Panchayat. According to the petitioner, the said property is a 'dry land'. So, he wants to construct a commercial building in the said property and accordingly he applied to the respondent/Panchayat for a building permit. But the respondent/Panchayat rejected the application stating that according to the possession certificate, the property belonged to the petitioner has been classified as 'Nilam' and building permit cannot be granted for **W.P. (C) No.8563 of 2016** -: 2 :- constructing the commercial building. This is the grievance projected in this writ petition and it is with this grievance, this writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash Ext.P4 and to direct the respondent/Panchayat to grant the building permit to the petitioner. 2. Going by Ext.P4, it is seen that the application seeking building permit has been rejected on the sole reason that the property is described as 'Nilam' in the possession certificate and the building permit cannot be granted for constructing the commercial building. The respondent/Panchayat has no case that the petitioner has converted or reclaimed the said property after the commencement of the the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act'). If the property is not a converted one, after the commencement of the Act, the prohibition under Sec.3 of the Act will not come into play and thereby the application seeking building **W.P. (C) No.8563 of 2016** -: 3 :- permit cannot be refused under Sec.14 of the Act. The question whether the building permit can be denied on the basis of the description of the property entered in the revenue records as 'Nilam' was considered by this Court in various decisions which are given below: Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P. v. State of Kerala and another [2012 (3) KLT 86]; Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2012 (3) KLT 333] and Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009 (3) KLT 899]. 4. As regards the relevancy of the entries in the revenue records with respect to the description of the properties, this Court in the decision reported in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009 (3) KLT 899] 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 **W.P. (C) No.8563 of 2016** -: 4 :- and not depending on the description of the property in the revenue 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.” 5. More over, 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. 6. 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 not be conclusive and may not estop a party from producing materials to show otherwise. 7. In view of the above decisions, the building **W.P. (C) No.8563 of 2016** -: 5 :- permit cannot be denied on the basis of the wrong or erroneous entries in the revenue records which stand in dissonance with the actual lie of the land or the ground realities. If that be so, the Panchayat is at liberty to conduct a site inspection and pass orders in accordance with the nature of land to be found in the said site inspection. It is made clear that if the respondent/Panchayat is satisfied that the land in dispute is not one converted after the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, they are at liberty to take a decision in accordance with the ground realities found in the site inspection. 8. Consequently, Ext.P4 order will stand set aside and further, the respondent/Panchayat is directed to conduct a site inspection in the property and consider the application afresh on the basis of the present lie of the land to be found in the site inspection, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy **W.P. (C) No.8563 of 2016** -: 6 :- of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. This writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. Sd/- **(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)** ## **Nan/** //true copy// P.S. to Judge