K.A. Padmakumar v. Guruvayur Municipality

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2014-02-25
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P2 is set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the applicant’s building-permit application afresh after conducting an onsite inspection to verify whether the land is a paddy field and, if cultivable, to pass appropriate orders expeditiously, within six weeks from receipt of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Disposed of accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.A. Padmakumar

Respondents

Guruvayur Municipality

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Santhosh (Poduval)
• R. Rajitha

Counsels for Respondents

• P. A. Ahamed
• M. Sreekumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

K.A. Padmakumar, owner in possession of 11.2 cents of land in Iringapram village, Thrissur, seeks a building permit which the Guruvayur Municipality rejected under Ext.P2, asserting the property lies within a paddy field under the Town Planning Scheme. The petitioner contends that the ground of rejection is unsustainable in light of numerous Kerala High Court decisions, including Ext.P5, and that the factual matrix closely resembles precedents where permits were allowed. The counter affidavit reiterates Ext.P2’s reasoning. The court notes that Ext.P2 rests on the Master Plan (1996) and the lack of evidence of its implementation by the Corporation. Relying on Corporation of Thrissur v. Kunjilakutty (2014 (1) KLT 188), the judge holds that denying a permit solely because land is within a designated paddy zone, without implementing the plan or verifying actual land use, is unsustainable. The court cites Raju S. Jethmalani & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors (2005) 11 SCC 222 and Nasar v. Malappuram Municipality (2009) (3) KLT 92 to support the approach. Ext.P2 is set aside; the respondent is directed to reconsider the application after inspecting the property to determine if it is a paddy field and if it is cultivable, with orders to be issued within six weeks of receiving this judgment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Town Planning SchemeMaster Plan (1996)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that Ext.P2’s sole reliance on the classification of the land as paddy field under the Town Planning Scheme is unsustainable, especially given (i) the absence of active steps to implement the 1996 Master Plan, (ii) the Court’s own Ext.P5 decision aligning with similar factual matrices, and (iii) the need to verify actual land use on site. He urges the Court to follow the reasoning in Kunjilakutty and related precedents, and to direct the Municipality to consider the permit afresh after an on-site inspection to assess land use and cultivability, rather than a blanket rejection.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent submits that Ext.P2 rests on the Master Plan’s paddy-field designation; without implementing that plan, a building permit cannot be granted. They contend the plan’s zones must guide permissible uses and emphasize adherence to land-use planning under the Town Planning Scheme. They argue that the decision should reflect the status of the land as per the plan and that Ext.P2 was a reasoned refusal; the onus is on the petitioner to show the land’s suitability notwithstanding the plan’s designation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Corporation of Thrissur v. Kunjilakutty	2014 (1) KLT 188	Positive	The court finds this decision squarely applicable and relies on its reasoning to hold that rejecting a permit solely on a paddy-zone designation, without implementing the Master Plan, is unsustainable.
Raju S. Jethmalani & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors	(2005) 11 SCC 222	Positive	Cited in support of the approach adopted in Kunjilakutty and subsequent reasoning concerning land-use and permit decisions.
Nasar v. Malappuram Municipality	2009 (3) KLT 92	Positive	Cited as part of the precedential framework reinforcing the view that Master Plan considerations require careful handling when evaluating permit refusals.

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 TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/6TH PHALGUNA, 1935 WP(C).No. 1114 of 2014 (L) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.A.PADMAKUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.K.NARAYANAN NAIR, AKSHAYA, POOTHOLE P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT, MANAGING DIRECTOR THRISSUR BUILDERS PVT. LTD., MACHINGAL LANE THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR - 680 101. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED, STANDING COUNSEL BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1114 of 2014 (L) --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------ EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED REGISTERED AS 1107/07 OF KOTTAPPADI S.R.O. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.11.13 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P3(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P3(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P3(C) : TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF LOCATION MAP SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.13 IN WP(C) NO.24070/12 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL ---------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== W.P.(C). No.1114 OF 2014 ==========================** Dated this the 25[th] day of February, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is the owner in possession of 11.2 cents of property comprised in survey No.157/1 of Iringapram village in Thrissur District. He applied for building permit to carry out construction of a building in the said property. However, the same was rejected as per Ext.P2 on the ground that the area in question is described as paddy field in the Town Planning Scheme. The contention of the petitioner is that the reason assigned for rejection of the application for building permit is unsustainable in the light of umpteen number of decisions of this Court. It is submitted that under similar circumstances, this Court passed Ext.P5 judgment and the factual situation obtained in this case is akin to the one involved in the said writ petition and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get an order on the same lines. **W.P.(C).1114/14** 2 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. A counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition by the respondent. Evidently, the counter affidavit is only an extended version of the reasons assigned in Ext.P2. As noticed hereinbefore, as per Ext.P2, the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit was rejected solely on the reason that the petitioner's property lies within the area earmarked as paddy field under the Town Planning Scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in **Corporation of Thrissur v. Kunjilakutty [2014 (1) KLT 188].** I am of the view that the said decision is squarely applicable in this case. Admittedly, in this case, the Master Plan referred to is of the year 1996. There is no case for the respondent that steps were taken by the Corporation to implement the said Master Plan. True that as per the Master Plan, the property of the petitioner whereon the building is proposed to be constructed by the petitioner lies within the area earmarked as paddy zone. There is also no case for the respondent that steps have been **W.P.(C).1114/14** 3 taken for effectuating the Master Plan. Going by the decision in **Kunjilakutty's** case (supra), rejection of application for building permit on the premise that the land in question falls within the area earmarked as paddy zone is unsustainable. In the said decision, this Court relied on the decisions in **Raju S.Jethmalani & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors [(2005) 11 SCC 222], Nasar v. Malappuram Municipality [2009(3) KLT 92].** In the light of the decision in **Kunjilakutty'** s case (supra), I am of the view that the reason assigned for refusing building permit to the petitioner cannot be sustained. In the said circumstances, Ext.P2 is set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit afresh after conducting an inspection into the petitioner's property to verify whether it is a paddy field. While conducting such an inspection and passing orders thereon the nature of the land in question and also the adjoining lands and if it is cultivable shall also be taken into account. Appropriate orders shall be passed thereafter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a **W.P.(C).1114/14** 4 period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Disposed of accordingly. **Sd/-** **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **W.P.(C).1114/14** 5 ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **W.P.(C).1114/14** 6