Krishna Raj v. Thrissur Corporation and The Executive Engineer, Local Self Government Department, Thrissur

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** **WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/10TH CHAITHRA, 1938** **WP(C).NO. 12176 OF 2016 (V) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **KRISHNA RAJ, S/O.RAJAN, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT PANIKETTY HOUSE,POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE,THRISSUR 680 001.** ## **2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,** **LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR 680 001.** **R1 & 2 BY SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).NO. 12176 OF 2016 (V)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **EXT:P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE,AYYANTHOLE 8.1.2016.** **EXT:P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5.3.2016.** **EXT:P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.35857/2015 ON THE FILE OF THIS COURT DATED 1.12.2015.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **-----------------------** ## **OKB** **// TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ## K.HARILAL, J. ## W.P.(C) No.12176 of 2016 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dated this the 30[th] day of March, 2016 **==> picture [74 x 25] intentionally omitted <==** The petitioner is the owner in possession 9.117 cents of land in survey No.754/P of Ayyanthole Village in Thrissur Taluk within the limits of the 1[st] respondent Corporation. According to the petitioner, the said property is lying as a dry land. So he wants to construct a residential apartment in the said property and applied for a building permit. for the same. before the 1[st] respondent Corporation. But, to his shock and dismay, the 2[nd] respondent rejected the application. by Ext.P2 order. stating that the property is included in the DTP scheme for Puzhakkal Urban Sub Centre and that, in the revenue records, the land has been described as Nilam. The legality and propriety of the above reasonings, whereby the petitioner's application seeking building permit stands rejected, **WP(C).12176/16-V :2:** are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. 3. Going by Ext.P2 order, it is seen that the building permit has been rejected on two reasons; firstly, it is stated that the property is included in the DTP scheme for Puzhakkal Urban Sub Centre and secondly, the land is described as Nilam in the revenue records. The question whether building permit can be rejected on the basis of DTP scheme, which has not been materialised and has become obsolete, was considered by the Apex Court as well as this Court in various decisions, which are given below: In Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2005 (11) SCC 222], the Apex Court held that the land belonging to private individuals cannot be included in development plans, unless the land is acquired by the State Government or the Municipal **WP(C).12176/16-V :3:** Corporation. The State Government cannot deprive the land owner of beneficially using his property, under the guise of DTP scheme, when no steps have been taken to actually implement the Scheme. Further, in Nazar v. Malappuram Municipality [2009 (3) KLT 92], this Court held as follows: “If any demand to create a rider over the title of the owner of the property under the pretext of a Town Planning Scheme which has not become operational by acquisition would essentially be oppressive and would not be countenanced on the face of Article 14 of the Constitution of India”. 4. In Saidu P. v. State of Kerala and others [2010 (3) KHC 974) this Court held that mere proposal under a Town Planning Scheme, without implementation of the same cannot be a ground for rejection of an application for building permit. 5. In Muhammed Subair v. Corporation of Kozhikode [2015 (3) KHC 307], the learned Single Judge of this Court following the ratio of Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999 KHC 619], has observed that in so far as **WP(C).12176/16-V :4:** the owner of the land is concerned, the acquisition affects his interest only from the issuance of notifications and declarations under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, any attempt to curb the rights of the owners of lands, until the publication of those statutory notifications and declarations, would result in infraction of the right to property under Art.300A of the Constitution. It is further opined that any infraction of that nature would also result in the violation of the equality principle in the matter of enforcement of laws as is enshrined in Art.14 of the Constitution. It is, in the end, emphatically held that any demand to create a rider over the title of the owner of the property under the pretext of a Town Planning Scheme which has not become operational by acquisition would, essentially, be oppressive and would not be countenanced in the face of Art.14 of the Constitution. It is also observed that in terms of the ratio laid down in the decisions referred to above, no **WP(C).12176/16-V :5:** property right can be interdicted and ipso facto no building permit can be refused on a mere proposal to have certain lands acquired. In other words, contemplation on the part of the officials cannot be a substantive ground to defeat the constitutional right of a person who wants to enjoy his property in the manner he desired fit, albeit, subject to legal limitations. 6. The sum and substance of the proposition laid down in the above decisions is that building permit cannot be rejected on the basis of a DTP scheme, which has not been materialised so far and has become obsolete by the passage of time. So also, it is held that the land owner's right to use the land in accordance with his requirements cannot be denied on the basis of the Master Plan unless the said property has been acquired in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act; otherwise, that may amount to deprivation of their fundamental right guaranteed **WP(C).12176/16-V :6:** under the Constitution of India. 7. Similarly, the question whether building permit can be denied on the basis of mere entries in the revenue records, without considering the ground reality, i.e., the actual lie of the land, was considered in various decisions of this Court, which are given below: 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 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 **WP(C).12176/16-V :7:** its description in the title document.” 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. The crux and content of the above decisions is that building permit cannot be rejected on the basis of mere entries in the revenue records without **WP(C).12176/16-V :8:** considering the ground reality, i.e., the actual lie of the land on the ground. 11. In the instant case, the respondent Corporation has no case that the property is now lying as a paddy land or the property is one converted after the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. If that be so, the prohibition under Section 3 or the said Act will not come into play and the building permit cannot be rejected under Section 14 of the said Act. Indisputably, it can be concluded that Ext.P2 order has been passed without considering the present lie of the land. 12. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P2 will stand quashed and the Secretary of the 1[st] respondent Corporation is directed to conduct a site inspection in the property as to ascertain the actual lie of the land and consider the application afresh and pass orders accordingly, at the earliest, at any rate, within a **WP(C).12176/16-V :9:** period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/K. HARILAL, JUDGE okb/30.3