High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-03-04Disposed of with directions; Ext.P3 quashed; si...

M. Sulaiman Haji and Mohammed Iqbal v. Manjeri Municipality

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 7350 of 2016 (P)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2016-03-04
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P3 is set aside; the Municipality is directed to conduct a site inspection and pass fresh orders within one month after hearing the petitioners.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions; Ext.P3 quashed; site inspection ordered and fresh decision to be issued within one month.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M. Sulaiman Haji
Mohammed Iqbal

Respondents

Manjeri Municipality, represented by its Secretary, Manjeri Municipality

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

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

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. K. Shibili Naha, SC, Manjeri Municipality

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioners M. Sulaiman Haji and Mohammed Iqbal, owners of 0.2060 hectares in Narukkara Village, Malappuram, sought a building permit from Manjeri Municipality to construct a commercial building on their land. The Municipality refused the permit, Ext.P3, on the sole ground that revenue records describe the land as Nilam. The petition contends that the refusal is invalid because the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 governs conversions of wetland/paddy lands, and that if the land has not been converted after the Act’s commencement, Sec.3 would not apply and Sec.14 cannot justify denial. The court surveys the jurisprudence, noting decisions Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P. v. State of Kerala; Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer; and Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat, which emphasize that description in revenue records is not determinative and that the Act operates on ground realities. It also cites Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner for the proposition that mere description in revenue records may not be conclusive. The court concludes that Ext.P3 cannot stand since the decision rests on erroneous description; the Municipality must conduct a site inspection and determine the land’s status based on actual conditions on the ground. It directs fresh orders within one month after hearing, provided the petitioner is heard. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions, and the court clarifies that if the site inspection reveals non-conversion, the authority may proceed based on ground realities.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 3Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 14

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ground realities on the land prevail over descriptions in revenue records; site inspection is required to determine actual land status and conversion under the Act.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners sought quashing of Ext.P3, which refused building permit on the basis that revenue records described the land as Nilam. They argued that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 governs conversion and that if the land has not been converted after the Act’s commencement, Sec.3 would not apply and Sec.14 cannot justify denial. They contend that the court should focus on ground realities (actual lie of the land) rather than the revenue description; the Municipality should conduct a site inspection and decide based on facts on the ground, as supported by decisions Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P., Jalaja Dileep, and Shahanaz Shukkoor.

Contentions of Respondents

The Municipality refused the permit based on revenue records classifying the land as Nilam; Ext.P3, invoking the Act’s restrictions, stands on the presumption that the land is a wetland/paddy land. The Respondent contends that the decision to deny is in line with principles of the Act and the revenue-based classification, and that the Authority can assess the situation and proceed accordingly.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P. v. State of Kerala and another	2012 (3) KLT 86	Positive	Used to support that present land realities can be considered for construction permissions and not solely rely on revenue records.
Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2012 (3) KLT 333	Positive	Cited as part of the line of cases considering the non-conclusive nature of revenue record descriptions under the Act.
Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat	2009 (3) KLT 899	Positive	Held that the Act operates on ground realities and not mere title document 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 production of 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 M. Sulaiman Haji and Mohammed Iqbal v. Manjeri Municipality 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** **FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/14TH PHALGUNA, 1937** **WP(C).No. 7350 of 2016 (P) ---------------------------** **PETITIONERS:** **------------** **1. M.SULAIMAN HAJI, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAKAN HAJI.** **2. MOHAMMED IQBAL, S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, AGED 49 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MECHERI HOUSE, KARUVAMBRAM.P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD** **RESPONDENT:** **------------** **MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJERI.P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 121.** **BY SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA, SC, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 7350 of 2016 (P)** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **EXT.P.1 :TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, NARUKARA TO PETITIONERS DATED 26.12.2015.** **EXT.P.2: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, NARUKARA TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 7.1.2016.** **EXT.P.3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 25.1.2016.** **EXT.P.4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.35857/2015 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 1.12.2015.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **NIL** //true copy// P.S. to Judge **K. HARILAL, J. -----------------------------------------------------W.P. (C) No.7350 of 2016-P -----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of March, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are the owners in possession of a property having an extent of 0.2060 Hectares comprised in R.S.No.138/73 of Narukkara Village in Malappuram District within the limits of the respondent/Municipality. According to the petitioners, the said property is a 'dry land'. Therefore, they applied for a building permit to construct a building for commercial purposes in the above said property. But, to the utter shock and dismay of the petitioner, the respondent/Municipality rejected the application by Ext.P3 stating that in the revenue records, the said property is classified as 'Nilam'. This is the grievance projected in this writ petition and it is with this ## **W.P. (C) No.7350 of 2016** -: 2 :- grievance, this writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash Ext.P3 and to direct the respondent/ Municipality to grant the building permit to the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Municipality. 3. The legality and propriety of the reasonings; whereby the petitioners' application seeking building permit stands rejected, are under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Going by Ext.P3, it is seen that the application seeking building permit has been rejected on the sole reason that in the revenue records, this property is classified as 'Nilam'. The respondent/Municipality has no case that the petitioners have 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 **W.P. (C) No.7350 of 2016** -: 3 :- 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 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: 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 ## **W.P. (C) No.7350 of 2016** -: 4 :- 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 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 ## **W.P. (C) No.7350 of 2016** -: 5 :- itself may not be conclusive and may not estop a party from producing materials to show otherwise. 8. In view of the above decision, the building permit cannot be denied 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 Municipality has 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/Municipality is satisfied that the land 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. 9. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P3 order will stand set aside and further, the respondent/ Municipality is directed to conduct a site inspection and pass orders afresh, within a period of one month **W.P. (C) No.7350 of 2016** -: 6 :- 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 with the above observations. Sd/- **(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)** ## **Nan/** //true copy// P.S. to Judge