High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2015-12-01This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

K.P. Ummer; K.U. Mohammed Shukkoor; K.U. Mohammed Shereef v The Thrissur Corporation, represented by its Secretary, The Secretary, Thrissur Corporation, and The Executive Engineer, Thrissur Corporation

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 33751 of 2015 (T)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2015-12-01
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P16 is set aside; the 2nd respondent is directed to conduct a site inspection and pass orders based on the ground reality, after giving notice to petitioners, within two months of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The decision may grant a building permit if the ground reality supports it; if conversion occurred after the Act’s commencement, Section 14 may preclude issuance.
Final Disposition: This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.P. Ummer
K.U. Mohammed Shukkoor
K.U. Mohammed Shereef

Respondents

The Thrissur Corporation, represented by its Secretary, Corporation Office, Thrissur
The Secretary, Thrissur Corporation, Corporation Office, Thrissur 680 001
The Executive Engineer, Thrissur Corporation, Corporation Office, Thrissur 680 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Binoy Vasudevan
• Smt. P.G. Babitha

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K.P. Vijayan
• Sri V.N. Haridas

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners challenge Ext.P16, an order of the Thrissur Corporation denying a building permit for constructing a commercial building on lands at Ayyanthole Village, Thrissur. The first and second petitioners hold substantial parcels of land in the area, and the third petitioner acts as their power of attorney. The 2nd respondent rejected the permit on the ground that the land lies within a mixed zone (commercial and residential) and, importantly, is described in revenue records as Nilam/paddy land. The petitioners submit photographs (Exh.P15) showing the present state: dry land surrounded by and in proximity to large residential structures, suggesting that practical use does not conform to the label in master plans. The court recalls precedents emphasizing ground realities over mere label in records. It cites WA 1731/2008 (2011) to support a realistic approach when areas earmarked as residential host commercial use; Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009 (3) KLT 899), noting the Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 operates on factual ground realities; and Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617 (DB)), holding that revenue-record descriptions are not automatically conclusive. Ext.P16 is set aside, and the 2nd respondent is directed to conduct a site inspection and decide based on ground reality within two months, considering potential application of Section 14 of the Paddy Land Act if conversion occurred after commencement.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008Section 14, Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that Ext.P16 rejecting the building permit is unsustainable. Photographs (Exh.P15) show the land’s present lie, with surrounding dry land and substantial residential development, contrary to the Nilam/paddy-labeled classification in revenue records. Relying on decisions in WA No. 1731/2008 (2011), Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009 (3) KLT 899), and Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617 (DB)), they urged that ground reality and actual use must govern permit decisions, and that mere description in revenue records should not bar development where the land has not been converted under the Paddy Land Act. They sought quashing Ext.P16 and issuance of a building permit.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend Ext.P16 on the grounds that the property is described as Nilam in revenue records, and the zoning restrictions of the mixed-use area apply. They rely on the statutory framework of the Paddy Land and Wetland Act and the Master Plan regime, arguing that permit issuance must reflect official classifications and legal protections for paddy land under Section 14 of the Act.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
W.A. No. 1731/2008	W.A. No.1731/2008	Positive	Cited as relevant authority supporting a realistic approach to zone classification in light of ground realities, potentially permitting changes to Master Plan designations.
Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat	2009 (3) KLT 899	Positive	Used to illustrate that the Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 operates on factual ground realities, not mere revenue-record descriptions.
Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner	2010 (2) KLT 617 (DB)	Positive	Supports the principle that revenue-record descriptions are not automatically conclusive and that other materials may be considered.

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.P. Ummer; K.U. Mohammed Shukkoor; K.U. Mohammed Shereef v The Thrissur Corporation, represented by its Secretary, The Secretary, Thrissur Corporation, and The Executive Engineer, Thrissur 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 K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 33751 of 2015 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. K.P.UMMER, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. YOUSUFKUTTY, KELATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KONDOORKARA, ONGALLOOR, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRIT. 2. K.U.MOHAMMED SHUKKOOR, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. K.P.UMMER, KELATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KONDOORKARA, ONGALLOOR, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. K.U.MOHAMMED SHEREEF, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. K.P.UMMER, KELATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KONDOORKARA, ONGALLOOR, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (THE 1ST AND 2ND PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER, THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER) BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR 680 001. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THRISSUR CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR 680 001. R1 -R 3 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN R1 -R 3 BY ADV. SRI.V.N.HARIDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33751 of 2015 (T) ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** EXHIBIT P1 - TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 318/2014 OF S.R.O., THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P2 - TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 4590/2013 OF S.R.O, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P3 - TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 5575/2007 OF S.R.O, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P4 - TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 3984/2013 OF S.R.O THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P5 - TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 254/2008 OF S.R.O THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P6 - TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 4680/2007 OF S.R.O, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P7 - TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 661/2014 OF S.R.O, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P8 - TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 4664/2007 OF S.R.O, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P9 - TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 660/2014 OF S.R.O, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P10 - TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 314/2008 OF S.R.O, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P11 - TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 417/04 OF S.R.O, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P12 - TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 4591/13 OF SRO, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P13 - TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 2113/2015 DT. 18.08.2015 ISSUED BY THEVILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P13(a)TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 2119/2015 DT. 18.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P13(b)TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 2118/2015 DT. 18.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P13(c)TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 2115/2015 DT. 18.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P13(d)TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 2114/2015 DT. 18.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P13(e)TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT. 18.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P13(f)TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 2117/2015 DT. 18.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE. WP(C) NO. 33751/2015 EXHIBIT P13(g)TRUE COPY OFTHE POSSESSSION CERTIFICATE NO. 2120/2015 DT. 18.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P13(h)TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 2116/2015 DT. 18.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P14 - TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DT. 17.8.2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFIER, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P14(a)TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DT. 17.I.2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P14(b)TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DT. 17.8.2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFIER, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P15 - TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTY AND ALSO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY SHOWING THE PRESENT LIE AND NATURE. EXHIBIT P16 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. DW5/BA/292/15-16 DT. 29.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THRISSUR CORPORATION. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. ncd ## K.HARILAL, J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ## W.P.(C) No.33751 of 2015 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dated this the 1[st] day of December, 2015. ## JUDGMENT The petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging Ext.P16 order whereby the application for building permit stands rejected by the 2[nd] respondent. The first petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 0.5321 Hectares of land in Ayyanthole Village in Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District by virtue of Exts.P3, P6 & P8 documents. The second petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 0.9327 Hectares of land in Ayyanthole Village in Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District by virtue of Exts.P1, Ext.P2,P4, P7, P9, P11 & P12. The third petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 0.4411 Hectares of land in Ayyanthole Village in Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District by virtue of Exts.P5 and P10. The petitioners intend to construct a commercial building in the property covered by Ext.P1 to P12 documents and they WP(C).33751/15 **:2:** submitted an application seeking building permit before the 2[nd] respondent. But, the 2[nd] respondent has rejected the said application by Ext.P16 order stating that the property, wherein the construction was sought to be made, was originally a paddy land and the description of the property shown in the Revenue Records is as Nilam. Hence the petitioners prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari calling for all records leading to Ext.P16 and quash the same and also to direct the respondent Corporation to grant building permit to the proposed construction. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. 3. Going by Ext.P16, it is seen that the building permit has been declined on the sole ground that the land, in question, is included in the mixed zonecommercial & residential. The petitioners have produced Ext.P15 photographs to show the present lie of the land. The genuineness of the photographs is not challenged by the respondents. WP(C).33751/15 **:3:** 4. Obviously, the photographs show that as contended by the petitioners, the property is surrounded by dry land wherein huge residential buildings are situated. In the said circumstance, the decision laid down by this Court in W.A. No.1731/2008 dated 14/6/2011 is relevant which reads as follows: “If in an area earmarked as a residential zone large number of constructions for commercial purposes were permitted whether under orders issued by the Government or not, then the only sensible thing for the Corporation to do is to take a realistic approach by not regarding the area any longer as a residential zone and request the Government to make suitable change in the Master Plan to make it in conformity with ground reality.” 5. It was held in Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat [2009 (3) KLT 899] 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 WP(C).33751/15 **:4:** 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. 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 the light of the proposition laid down by this Court in the above decisions, Ext.P16 order will stand set aside. Further, the 2[nd] respondent is directed to conduct a site inspection and pass orders, after issuing notice to the petitioners, based on the ground reality, i.e., the actual lie of the land to be found in the site inspection, notwithstanding the inclusion of the property in the zone of 'paddy field'. 8. So also, the fact that the sale deed has been WP(C).33751/15 **:5:** executed after 2008 has no relevancy at all, if the 2[nd] respondent is satisfied that the conversion of the said property was not effected after the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. Certainly, if the land is one converted after the commencement of the above Act, the issuance of building permit would be barred under Section 14 of the said Act. Needless to say, if not, the 2[nd] respondent will be at liberty to issue building permit, where the application is in order. However, the 2[nd] respondent is directed to pass orders on the basis of the actual lie of the land to be found in the site inspection, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. K. HARILAL, JUDGE okb.