High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2015-12-08Writ petition disposed of partly in petitioner’...

M.K. Abdul Kareem v. The Secretary, Wandoor Grama Panchayath

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 2477 of 2015 (H)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2015-12-08
Court Decision / Holding: Exts.P3 and P5 quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to conduct a site inspection to ascertain the actual lie of the land, and pass fresh orders on Ext.P4 within two months from the receipt of a copy of the judgment, based on ground reality, notwithstanding revenue entries. If the land was converted before the Act, Section 14 may not apply; otherwise, applicable restrictions shall be observed.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of partly in petitioner’s favor: Exts.P3 and P5 quashed; directed site inspection and fresh consideration of Ext.P4 within two months, based on ground reality; acknowledgment that pre-Act conversions may affect Section 14 applicability.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M.K. Abdul Kareem

Respondents

Secretary, Wandoor Grama Panchayath
Village Officer, Wandoor
Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Malappuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.K.I.Mayankutty Mather
• Sri.Arun Kumar.P

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.Saju.S.A
• Sri Anitha Ravindran (Senior Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition concerns the petitioner, M.K. Abdul Kareem, who is in possession of a small land parcel (0.0555 hectares) at Sy. No.78-312/4, Wandoor, described in revenue records as nilam. The petitioner asserts the land is a pucca garden land abutting the Wandoor by-pass road and seeks permission to develop the property (construct a building) by filing Ext P4, after Ext P3 stop memo and Ext P5 refusal were issued by the authorities. The seizure of the land by the second respondent (stop memo) argued that the land is shown as nilam in revenue records, thus blocking development under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). Ext P2 indicates the land is partially converted garden land, suggesting it should not be barred by Section 14 of the Act. The petitioner contends that the decision to deny development was taken without site inspection, and relies on prior Kerala High Court precedents which hold that revenue-record descriptions cannot determine the actual land use on the ground. The court examined Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat and Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner, and concluded that decisions must reflect actual land conditions rather than registry entries. The judgment quashes Ext P3 and P5 and directs a site inspection, with orders to be passed afresh within two months, based on ground reality; if conversion occurred before the Act, Section 14 may not apply.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 14Kerala Stamp Act - Section 28

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

The Act operates on the basis of facts as they exist on ground realities, not on the description of the land in revenue records.
Mere description of property in revenue records by itself may not be conclusive and may not estop a party from producing materials to show otherwise.
Permit cannot be rejected solely on the basis that revenue entries show the land as nilam.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner urged that the land is partially converted garden land and not wetland, the revenue description nilam is outdated, and Ext P3 stop memo was issued without site inspection. Ext P4 sought development permission, which was denied by Ext P5 solely on the basis of revenue entries. The petitioner relied on precedents emphasizing ground realities over registry descriptions, contending Ext P3 and Ext P5 were illegal and unsustainable. He requested quashing of these orders and a fresh decision after a site inspection, with a two-month deadline, and asserted that if conversion occurred before the Act, the Section 14 bar would not apply.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the property is shown as nilam in revenue records, justifying denial of development under the Act. Ext P2 indicated partial conversion, but the Stop Memo and refusal were premised on statutory provisions under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. They contended that the development cannot be permitted where the land classification is in records, and that the authorities acted within their powers. They supported Ext P3 and Ext P5 as proper administrative actions pending site verification.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat	2009 (3) KLT 899	Positive	Cited to establish that the Act operates on ground realities and not merely on revenue-record descriptions.
Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner	2010 (2) KLT 617 (DB)	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that mere revenue-record description is not conclusive and may not bar evidence of actual land use.

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.K. Abdul Kareem v. The Secretary, Wandoor 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** **TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937** ## **WP(C).No. 2477 of 2015 (H)** ## **---------------------------** **PETITIONER:** ## **-------------------** **M.K.ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.HASSANKUTTY, AGED 50 YEARS, MANCHERIKURIKAL HOUSE, WANDOOR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM-679 328.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P** **RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------** **1. THE SECRETARY, WANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM -679 328.** ## **2. VILLAGE OFFICER,** **WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM -679 328.** ## **3. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,** **KRISHI BHAVAN, MALAPPURAM -679 328.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A R2 & R 3 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **WP(C).No. 2477 of 2015 (H) -------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** **-------------------------------------** **EXT P1: PHOTOGRAPHS REVELAING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DATED NIL. EXT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.WDR.34/2014-15 DATED 28.11.2014. EXT P2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY EXT.P2 DATED 28.11.2014. EXT P3: TRUE COPY OF 'STOP MEMO' ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.572/2014 DATED 27.11.2014. EXT P3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P3 DATED 27.11.2014. EXT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.12.2014. EXT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.01.2015. EXT P5(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P5. DATED 09.01.2015. EXT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THEFAIR VALUE REGISTER UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE KERALA STAMP ACT DATED NIL.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **mbr/** **K. HARILAL, J.** ## **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No.2477 of 2015** **- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 8th day of December, 2015 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 0.0555 Hectares (13.7 cents) of land comprised in Sy. No.78-312/4 of Wandoor village, by virtue of Assignment Deed No.2286/2004 of S.R.O., Wandoor. According to the petitioner, the said property is a pucca garden land and the same is situated abutting the Wandoor by-pass road on the south. It is neither wet land nor paddy field covered under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Fields and Wet Lands Act, 2008 ( _hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')_ . There are several commercial and residential buildings situated on all the three sides of the property. But, unfortunately, in the revenue records the said property is described as 'nilam', as the entry was made **W.P.(C) No. 2477 of 2015** **-: 2 :-** years back, without noticing the subsequent developments in the actual lie of the property. According to Ext.P2(a), issued by the Agricultural Officer also, the said property is lying, as partially converted garden land and thereby, the said property will not come under the bar provided under Section 14 of the Act. 2. While so, in November, 2014, the petitioner tried to level up his land, by filling up with some earth. Immediately, the 2[nd] respondent issued Ext.P3, Stop Memo, directing the petitioner not to fill up the land on the reason that the said land is shown as 'nilam' in the revenue records. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 Stop Memo is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable under law. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application, seeking permission to develop the land, so as to construct a building in the said property. But, the 1[st] respondent rejected the said application, by Ext. P5, stating that in the revenue records, the property is shown as 'nilam' and thereby no ## **W.P.(C) No. 2477 of 2015** ## **-: 3 :-** permission can be granted for development of the property. This is the grievance projected through the pleadings in this Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and . learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments highlighting the present lie of the land and drew my attention to various decisions rendered by this Court on the issue involved in this Writ Petition. 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 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_ ## **W.P.(C) No. 2477 of 2015** ## **-: 4 :-** _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. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the respondent can be justified in rejecting the application for development permit on the reason that the said property is shown as 'nilam' in the revenue records. Ext.P2 certificate, issued by the Agricultural Officer shows that the property is a partially converted garden land and lying as such since the last more than 12 years. The genuineness of Ext.P1 photographs is not challenged in this Writ Petition. Obviously, the photographs show that the property is lying, as a garden land, on the side of a ## **W.P.(C) No. 2477 of 2015** **==> picture [34 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** tarred public road, and huge buildings are situated on both sides of the said land. 8. In view of Exts.P1 and P2, obviously, it is discernible that Ext.P5 order had been passed, without conducting a site inspection. This Court in various decisions held that permit cannot be rejected on the mere reason that the entries in the revenue records show that the property is lying as 'nilam'. 9. Consequently, Exts.P3 and P5 will stand quashed. The 1[st] respondent is directed to conduct a site inspection to ascertain the actual lie of the land, and pass orders afresh on Ext.P4, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, on the basis of the actual lie of the land to be found in the inspection notwithstanding the entries in the revenue records. It is made clear that if the land was converted before the commencement of the Act, certainly the bar under Section 14 of the said Act will not come into play; ## **W.P.(C) No. 2477 of 2015** **-: 6 :-** but conversely,if otherwise. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **K. HARILAL,** **JUDGE** DST //True copy// P.A. To Judge