High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-02-01Writ petition disposed of accordingly.

Muhammed Ashraf v. Manjeri Municipality

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 1586 of 2016 (W)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2016-02-01
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P3 will stand set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent Municipality for fresh consideration, after conducting a site inspection within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and to pass orders within another one month after inspection.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

MUHAMMED ASHRAF, aged 47 years, s/o UMMER, residing at Kondottiparamban House, Kottupatta, Narukara, Malappuram District

Respondents

Manjeri Municipality, represented by its Secretary, Manjeri P.O., Malappuram-676 121

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

Muhammed Ashraf, the title holder of 0.4241 hectares in RS 171/1 Narukara Village, Malappuram, sought a building permit from Manjeri Municipality to construct an auditorium. He produced Exts P1 (tax receipt) and P2 (possession certificate) to prove title and possession. The Municipality rejected the application, relying on Ext P3, which describes the land in revenue records as 'Nilam'. The petitioner challenges the decision as illegal and bad in law, arguing that the status of wetlands or paddy land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 must be assessed on actual ground realities, not solely by revenue-record entries. The respondent has not shown that the land was converted post-Act to bring it under the Act’s prohibitions; hence Sec. 3 would not apply and Sec. 14 cannot be invoked to reject the permit. The court cites precedents including Shahanaz Shukkoor, Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P., Jalaja Dileep, Praveen, and Jafarkhan to emphasize that the description in revenue records cannot be the sole determinant and that facts on the ground govern decisions under the Act. Finding the impugned order devoid of site-realty assessment, the court sets aside Ext. P3 and remits the matter to the Municipality for fresh consideration after conducting a site inspection within one month, with a further month to pass orders.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, Sec. 3Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, Sec. 14

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ground reality principle: actual lie of land governs status under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and not merely the description in revenue records.
Description in title deeds or revenue records is not conclusive proof of paddy land or wetland.
Mere description of property in revenue records may not estop a party from producing materials to show otherwise.
Application for building permit cannot be rejected solely on entries in revenue records as 'Nilam' without considering ground realities.
Nilam description alone cannot determine status if on-ground realities indicate otherwise.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the building permit was unjustifiably refused solely on the Nilam entry in revenue records (Ext. P3). The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 operates on facts on the ground reality, not on revenue-record descriptions. There is no proof that the land was converted post-Act; therefore Sec. 3 would not apply and Sec. 14 cannot be invoked to oppose a permit. The impugned order (Ext. P3) is without proper ground assessment, and should be set aside; the matter should be remitted for fresh consideration after a site inspection. The Court is urged to follow precedents that emphasize ground reality over registry descriptions.

Contentions of Respondents

The Municipality rejected the permit based on the Nilam description, arguing that such status falls under the Act’s restrictions and that post-Act conversion is not proven; without evidence of conversion, Sec. 3 and Sec. 14 restrictions justify denial of the permit.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat	2009 (3) KLT 899	Positive	The court cited the decision to emphasize that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 operates on on-ground facts rather than mere revenue-record descriptions.
Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P. v. State of Kerala and Another	2012 (3) KLT 86	Positive	Held that the actual lie of the land can be considered when granting construction permission.
Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2012 (3) KLT 333	Positive	Described that title-deed descriptions are not material if land had been reclaimed before the Act.
Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner	2010 (2) KLT 617 (DB)	Positive	Stated that revenue-record descriptions may not be conclusive and do not prevent presenting contrary evidence.
Jafarkhan v. K.A. Kochumakkar and others	2012 (1) KHC 523 (DB)	Positive	Held that Nilam description is not conclusive proof of paddy/wetland status.

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 Muhammed Ashraf 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** **MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/12TH MAGHA, 1937** **WP(C).No. 1586 of 2016 (W) ---------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **-----------** **MUHAMMED ASHRAF, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O UMMER, RSIDING AT KONDOTTIPARAMBAN HOUSE, KOTTUPATTA, NARUKARA, 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 PO., MALAPPURAM-676 121** **BY SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA, SC, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 1586 of 2016 (W) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **------------------------** **EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, NARUKARA VILLAGE TO THE PETITIONER DT. 8/7/15.** **EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUD BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, NARUKARA VILLAGE TO THE PETITIONER DT. 9/12/2015.** **EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT. 28/12/15.** **EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 35857/15 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COUR DT. 1/12/15.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------** ## **NIL** //true copy// P.S. to Judge **K. HARILAL, J. -----------------------------------------------------W.P. (C) No. 1586 of 2016-W -----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of February, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the title holder in possession of 0.4241 Hectares of land in R.S. No.171/1 of Narukara Village in Malappuram District within the limits of the respondent/Municipality. The petitioner wanted to construct an Auditorium in the said property and accordingly, applied to the respondent/Municipality for a building permit and produced all the required documents to prove the title and possession over the property which are evidenced by Exts.P1 and P2. According to the petitioner, to his utter shock and dismay, the respondent/Municipality rejected the application, stating that according to the revenue records, the property belonging to the petitioner has **W.P. (C) No. 1586 of 2016** -: 2 :- been classified as 'Nilam', by Ext.P3. The legality and property of the reasoning, whereby the petitioner's application, seeking building permit stands rejected, are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Municipality. 3. Going by Ext.P3, it is seen that the application for building permit has been rejected on the sole reason that the said property is described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records. The respondent/Municipality has no case that the said property is the one converted or reclaimed, after the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Needless to say , if the property is not the one converted, after the commencement of the said Act, the prohibition under Sec.3 of the said Act will not come into play and the building permit cannot be rejected under Sec.14 of the said Act. The question, ## **W.P. (C) No. 1586 of 2016** -: 3 :- whether the application for building permit can be rejected on the basis of the entries in the revenue records as 'Nilam', was considered by this Court in various decisions. 4. 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 its description in the title document.” 5. Moreover, in Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P. v. State of Kerala and Another [2012 (3) KLT 86], this **W.P. (C) No. 1586 of 2016** -: 4 :- Court held that the present lie of the land can be taken into consideration while granting permission to make construction. 6. 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. 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 itself may not be conclusive and may not estop a party from producing materials to show otherwise. 8. In Jafarkhan v. K.A. Kochumakkar and others [2012 (1) KHC 523 (DB)], this Court has categorically stated that mere description of the property in the revenue records as 'Nilam' is not conclusive proof of the same and the property cannot be treated as a **W.P. (C) No. 1586 of 2016** -: 5 :- 'paddy field' or 'wetland' coming within the definition of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. 9. The proposition that can be culled out from the above decisions is that the application for building permit cannot be rejected on the sole basis of the entires in the revenue records as 'Nilam', without considering the ground reality i.e., the actual lie of the land or the ground. 10. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that the respondent/Municipality has not considered the 'ground reality' as referred to in the decisions referred above. 11. In view of the matter, Ext.P3 will stand set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent/Municipality for fresh consideration, after conducting a site inspection. The respondent/ Municipality is directed to conduct a site inspection within a period of one month from the date of receipt ## **W.P. (C) No. 1586 of 2016** -: 6 :- of a copy of this judgment and pass orders accordingly, in view of the legal proposition referred above, within a period of another one month from the date of inspection of the property. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- ## **(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)** ## **Nan/** //true copy// P.S. to Judge