High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-04-07Disposed of with observations; Ext.P4 set aside...

K. Prakash Babu v. Pudussery Grama Panchayath

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 12984 of 2016 (W)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2016-04-07
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P4 order set aside; the Secretary of the Panchayat is directed to conduct a site inspection of the property to ascertain the actual lie of the land, and thereafter consider the applicant’s building-permit application afresh in accordance with the land’s ground reality, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and to pass orders within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with observations; Ext.P4 set aside and site-inspection-directed reconsideration of the permit within one month, after hearing the petitioner.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K. Prakash Babu

Respondents

Pudussery Grama Panchayath, represented by its Secretary

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

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

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the Pudussery Grama Panchayath’s 29/3/2016 rejection of a building permit for a residential building on land described in revenue records as Nilam. The petitioner-owner seeks to develop approximately 10.5 cents of land in Pudussery Central Village, Palakkad Taluk, where predecessors had obtained orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The Panchayath denied the permit solely on the ground that the possession certificate lists the land as Nilam, asserting a wetland/paddy-land status. The court clarifies that under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the prohibition on conversion applies to actual facts on the ground, not merely to the description in revenue records. It cites earlier decisions: Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P. v. State of Kerala; Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer; and Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat, to emphasize that the true lie of the land matters and that revenue-record descriptions cannot by themselves bar construction. The court notes that the predecessors already had orders under the Land Utilisation Order and directs a site inspection to determine the land’s actual status, after which the permit must be reconsidered, with hearing afforded to the petitioner, within one month of judgment delivery. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

The Act operates on ground realities and not merely on description in title documents or revenue records.
Descriptions in revenue records are not conclusive of land status; actual lie of the land governs permissions.
Site inspection is essential where land status is in dispute to determine the true nature of the land before granting a building permit.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that denial of a building permit cannot rest solely on the Nilam description in the Possession Certificate, since the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 operates on factual ground realities, not on mere revenue-record descriptions. It relies on earlier rulings that the current lie of the land and prior orders under the Land Utilisation Order permit construction or conversion, and that site inspection should determine actual land status before denial or grant of permit.

Contentions of Respondents

The Panchayath argues that the Possession Certificate’s Nilam description indicates the land is not suitable for residential construction and falls within wetland/paddy land categories under the Act; it asserts Sec.3 (and related prohibitions) apply to land status as described in official records, and that a permit cannot be granted if the land is contemplated to be converted under the Act.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P. v. State of Kerala and another	2012 (3) KLT 86	Positive	The decision supports considering the present lie of the land for construction permission, not solely relying on description in records.
Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2012 (3) KLT 333	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of the decisions discussed, but not elaborated upon in the judgment.
Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat	2009 (3) KLT 899	Positive	Principle cited that the Act operates on factual ground realities and not on revenue-record descriptions.
Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner	2010 (2) KLT 617 (DB)	Positive	Held that mere description in revenue records may not be conclusive and may not estop a party from presenting contrary materials.

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. Prakash Babu v. Pudussery 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** **THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/18TH CHAITHRA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 12984 of 2016 (W) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------** **K.PRAKASH BABU, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.K.N. KRISHNANKUTTY, RESIDING AT NANU NIVAS,KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD 678621.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD** **RESPONDENT:** **-----------** **PUDUSSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,** **KANJIKODE P O, PALAKKAD 678621** ## **R BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 12984 of 2016 (W)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE,KANJIKODE VILLAGE TO THE PETITIONER DTD 13/7/2015** **EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD DTD 20/7/1988** **EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD DTD 20/7/1998** **EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER DTD 29/3/2016** **EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF FEW PHTOGRAPSH DEPICTING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY DTD NIL** **EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 35670/2015 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DTD 1/12/2015** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** ## **NIL** //true copy// P.S. to Judge **K. HARILAL, J. -----------------------------------------------------W.P. (C) No.12984 of 2016-W -----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of April, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the owner of approximately 10.5 cents of land comprised in R.S.Nos.247/2/2 and 247/2/3 of Pudussery Central Village in Palakkad Taluk, within the limits of the respondent Panchayat. According to the petitioner, the said property is lying as 'dry land' and the predecessors of the petitioner had already obtained orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order in respect of the said land. So, the petitioner had applied for a building permit for the construction of a residential building; but, the respondent Panchayat, by Ext.P4, rejected the said application on the sole reason that the Possession Certificate shows that the property is lying as 'Nilam'. **W.P. (C) No.12984 of 2016** -: 2 :- The legality and propriety of the reasonings; whereby the petitioner's application seeking building permit stands rejected, are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayat. 3. Going by Ext.P4, it is seen that the sole reason for rejecting the application is that in the Possession Certificate, the property is described as 'Nilam'. The respondent Panchayat has no case that even now the property is actually lying as 'paddy land' or the petitioner has converted or reclaimed the said property, after the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act'). It is needless to say, in the above view, the prohibition under Sec.3 of the Act will not come into play and thereby, the building permit cannot be refused under Sec.14 of the Act. ## **W.P. (C) No.12984 of 2016** -: 3 :- 4. The question whether the building permit can be denied merely 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]. 5. 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.12984 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.” 6. 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. 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 not be conclusive and may not estop a party from producing materials to show otherwise. 8. The proposition that can be culled out from ## **W.P. (C) No.12984 of 2016** -: 5 :- the above decisions is that the building permit cannot be denied merely on the basis of the wrong or erroneous entries in the revenue records which stand contrary to the ground reality i.e., the actual lie of the land. If that be so, the Panchayat has to conduct a site inspection and pass orders in accordance with the nature of land to be found in the said site inspection. 9. Moreover, going by Exts.P2 and P3, it is seen that the predecessors of the petitioner had already obtained orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order for the conversion of the said land. 10. Consequently, Ext.P4 order will stand set aside. The Secretary of the Panchayat is directed to conduct a site inspection in the property so as to ascertain the actual lie of the land and thereafter, consider the application afresh and pass orders in accordance with the 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 of this judgment, after **W.P. (C) No.12984 of 2016** -: 6 :- 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 Continued at Page No.7 .......... -: 7 :- **W.P. (C) No.12984 of 2016** The word “residential” occurring in paragraph-1 of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.12984/2016 dated 07/04/2016 is corrected and substituted with the word “commercial” as per order dated 03/06/2016 in I.A.6766/2016 in W.P.(C) No.12984/2016. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)