High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2015-11-26Writ petition disposed of; Ext. P6 quashed; Pan...

Mohammed v. The State of Kerala & Karulai Grama Panchayat

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 33338 of 2015 (N)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2015-11-26
Court Decision / Holding: Ext. P6 quashed; the Panchayat directed to issue the building permit if the proposed construction complies with the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules within one month from receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; Ext. P6 quashed; Panchayat directed to issue building permit within one month subject to compliance with statutory requirements under Kerala Panchayat Building Rules.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mohammed

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by its Secretary to Government Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
The Karulai Grama Panchayat represented by its Secretary, Kurulai P.O., Karulai, Malappuram District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. SRI. MAHBOOB ARUVEETTIL

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. ANITHA RAVINDRAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Mohammed, owner of a building in Karulai town, seeks a building permit to demolish an old structure and construct a new building on land described in revenue records as nilam (dry land). The building is over thirty years old and comprises six rooms, which are numbered in Ext. P4. He claims ownership by virtue of Ext. P1 (sale deed) and pays tax (Exts. P2, P4). The Karulai Grama Panchayat rejected the application (Ext. P6) on the grounds that the land was reclaimed before 2008, and the proposed commercial construction would contravene the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, thereby denying a permit. The writ petition challenges Ext. P6 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The court notes that Ext. P6 relies on the pre-2008 reclamation claim, while the land was not reclaimed after the commencement of the Act; the Act’s Section 14 would not apply in this case. The petitioner relies on 2010(2) KLT 617 (Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner) and 2009(3) KLT 899 (Shahnaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat), which establish that revenue-record descriptions are not conclusive and the Act operates on actual ground realities, not merely on title documents. The court suggests site inspection to assess the ground reality and holds Ext. P6 unsustainable for want of mindful consideration. It directs the Panchayat to issue the building permit if statutory requirements under Kerala Panchayat Building Rules are satisfied, within one month from the date of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008Section 14 of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008Kerala Panchayat Building Rules

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Site inspections are essential to assess ground realities rather than relying solely on revenue records.
The Act operates on actual fact situations on the ground, not on descriptions in title documents.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the proposed demolition and new construction would occur on land described as dry land, not a paddy field or wetland. He argues the old building is around 30 years old; the sale deed and tax receipts (Exts. P1–P4) establish ownership and payment of taxes. Ext. P6’s reasoning—land reclaimed before 2008 and the project being commercial—lacks lawful basis, since the land was not reclaimed after the commencement of the 2008 Act, so Section 14 does not apply. He relies on 2010(2) KLT 617 and 2009(3) KLT 899 for the proposition that revenue-record descriptions are not conclusive and that the Act is grounded in actual ground realities; he urges site inspection and grant of permit if KPBR requirements are satisfied within a month. respondents:

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ position is stated in Ext. P6: the permit was denied because the land was reclaimed before 2008 and the proposed construction would be for commercial purposes, contrary to the Act’s objectives. The Panchayat’s decision appears to be based on pre-2008 reclamation status and regulatory safeguards under the Paddy Land and Wet Land Act. The respondents rely on the Act to protect wetland/paddy land interests and justify the denial; however, the court notes the land was not reclaimed after the Act’s commencement, indicating Section 14 may not apply. The record suggests no active opposition to the petitioner’s compliance with statutory requirements if ground realities support it, but the respondents did not appear in court to argue further.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner	2010 (2) KLT 617	Positive	The court cites this decision to support that mere description of property in revenue records may not be conclusive and may not estop presenting contrary materials; site realities govern outcomes.
Shahnaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat	2009 (3) KLT 899	Positive	The court cites this decision to emphasize that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 operates on ground realities rather than title descriptions in revenue records.

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 Mohammed v. The State of Kerala & Karulai Grama Panchayat 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 THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 33338 of 2015 (N) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- MOHAMMED AGED 48 YEARS S/O.ABU(LATE), MAANCHERI HOUSE, MILENPARA KARULAI.P.O., KARULAI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MAHBOOB ARUVEETTIL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT THE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE KARULAI GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KURULAI.P.O., KARULAI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV.ANITHA RAVINDRAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2611-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33338 of 2015 (N) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------P1- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4703/2014 DATED 19.12.2014. P2- TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE KARULAI VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 20.7.2015 TO THE PETITIONER. P3- TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK. P4- TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT THE PETITIONER DATED 18.4.2015. P5- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NUMBER 2907 DATED 5.8.2015. P6- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.B2 2907/2015 DATED 19.10.2015. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------NIL TRUE COPY SKS P.A TO JUDGE ## **K.HARILAL, J.** ## **-------------------------------------W.P(C)NO. 33338 OF 2015 --------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of November, 2015** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the owner of the building situated in the heart of the Karulai town and the land wherein the building is situated, is surrounded by multistoried buildings. The said property belongs to him by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed and paying tax under Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, the said land is a pacca dry land wherein the old building is situating and the age of the said building is more than thirty years and having six rooms. Each room is numbered by the second respondent with different numbers and the same is evidenced by Ext.P4. The petitioner intends to demolish the old building and to construct a new building in the place, where the old building is situated. Therefore the petitioner filed an application seeking grant of building permit for the proposed construction. After a long lapse of time, the second respondent rejected the said application by Ext.P6 order stating that the local level 2 W.P(C)NO.33338/2015 monitoring committee reported that the said land was reclaimed before 2008. Since, the proposed construction is intended for commercial purpose, no building permit can be issued to the petitioner. This is the grievance projected in the writ petition. 2. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for all records leading to Ext.P6 and quash the same holding it as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 3. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments highlighting the grievance projected in this writ petition. Even though, notice has been duly served on the respondent Panchayat, none appears for the Panchayat. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the proposed construction is intended to be made in the land where the old building is situating and permission is sought for construction in the place where that old building is situating. 3 W.P(C)NO.33338/2015 5. Going by Ext.P6 order, it is seen that building permit was declined on the reason that the said land was reclaimed before 2008 and the proposed building is intended for a commercial purpose. Admittedly, the land wherein reconstruction of the building is sought to be made is not a land reclaimed after the commencement of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. Therefore the prohibition under Section 14 of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act will not come into play against the petitioner. 6. The case of the petitioner is that the existing building which is intended to be demolished was constructed thirty years back and Ext.P4 tax receipt shows that the petitioner has been paying building tax for the same. Therefore there is no reason to deny the building permit under the said Act. Even if the description of the property in the revenue records is 'nilam', in **2010 (2) KLT 617 (Praveen vs. Land Revenue Commissioner)** this Court 4 ## W.P(C)NO.33338/2015 held that “mere description of the property in the revenue records by itself may not be conclusive and may not estopp a party from producing materials to show otherwise”. 7. Further in **2009(3) KLT 899 (Shahnaz Shukkoor vs. Chelannur Grama Panchayat)** this Court clarified the legal position thus: “The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, deals with the conservation 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 the ground realities and not on any quality or type of land, depending on its description in the title document”. 8. The principle that can be culled out from the decision is that the Panchayat authorities should conduct a site inspection to assess the ground realities and if the land is not the one reclaimed after the commencement of Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and lies 5 W.P(C)NO.33338/2015 as dry land, the respondent Panchayat ought not have denied the building permit, on the ground that the property was described in the revenue records as 'nilam'. 9. In the above view, I find that Ext.P6 order passed by the respondent Panchayat is unsustainable under law and the same has been passed without application of mind. It follows that Ext.P6 will stand quashed and the Panchayat is directed to issue building permit to the petitioner if the proposed construction is in consonance with the statutory requirements under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. ## **K.HARILAL, JUDGE** sks 6 W.P(C)NO.33338/2015