High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-04-09The petitions are allowed; Exts.P1 are quashed;...

Suresh Babu C. v. Keezhupparambu Grama Panchayath

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).Nos.668 & 695 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.K. Abdul Rehim
Judgment Date: 2012-04-09
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions allowed; Exts.P1 quashed for both WP(C) Nos.668 and 695 of 2012. The Secretary is directed to re-consider the building-permit applications afresh, after hearing the petitioners, and to grant permits if the lands remained converted prior to enactment and all other conditions are satisfied, with a final decision within one month of receiving a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: The petitions are allowed; Exts.P1 are quashed; petitioners’ remedies are to be considered afresh by the Panchayat Secretary with hearing, and permits to be granted if conversion occurred before enactment and other requirements are satisfied; decision to be issued within one month.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Suresh Babu C.

Respondents

Keezhupparambu Grama Panchayath represented by its Secretary

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Babu S. Nair
• Smitha Babu

Counsels for Respondents

• K.M. Sathyanatha Menon

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Ext.P1, which rejected building permit applications on the ground that the subject properties were reclaimed in an unauthorised manner, treating the land as Nilam (wet land). The petitioners contend that the lands have long been converted and that mere conversion cannot justify denial of a building permit, nor can conversion alone bring the land within the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, especially since the Act is not retroactive. The respondent Panchayat argues that the description in revenue records and site inspection establish reclamation done without authority, and that a permit under the Act is required for construction. The court cites established Kerala law — Shahnaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009 (3) KLT 899), Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KHC 499 (DB)), and Jafarkhan v. K.A. Kochumakkar and others (2012 (1) KHC 523 (DB)) — to emphasize that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act has no retrospective operation and that land converted before enactment cannot be treated as paddy or wet land under the Act. Accordingly, Ext.P1 is held unsustainable. The petitions are allowed; Exts.P1 in both cases are quashed. The Secretary is instructed to reconsider the applications after due notice and hearing, and to grant permits if the land remained converted prior to enactment and other conditions are satisfied, with a final decision within one month of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Non-retroactivity of statutes (no retrospective operation) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008
Ground reality governs decision; not mere revenue-record descriptions of land

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argue that reclamation, if it occurred long ago, cannot be a bar to grant of building permits; the mere fact of historical conversion does not bring land within the Act’s scope, especially since the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 is not retroactive. They contend that Ext.P1 is unsustainable and that the decision to deny permits should be based on current ground reality rather than old revenue descriptions, and that permission should be granted if compliance and eligibility conditions are met upon fresh consideration with an opportunity of hearing.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend the lands are Nilam (wet land) per revenue records and that site inspection revealed reclamation without authority; they argue that any permitting must comply with the Act and that Ext.P1 was a valid exercise of power; protection of wetland resources requires adherence to statutory procedures and the Act’s provisions.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shahnaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat	2009(3) KLT 899	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 has no retrospective operation and that land converted before enactment cannot be treated as paddy/wet land.
Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner	2010(2) KHC 499(DB)	Positive	Cited to reinforce non-retroactivity and the ground reality approach to land classification under the Act.
Jafarkhan v. K.A.Kochumakkar and others	2012(1) KHC 523 (DB)	Positive	Cited as authority for the non-retroactive interpretation and the treatment of land converted prior to enactment.

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 Suresh Babu C. v. Keezhupparambu 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 C.K.ABDUL REHIM** **MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2012/20TH CHAITHRA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 668 of 2012 (G)** **------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **-----------------------** **SURESH BABU C., S/O. ACHUTHAN, CHENDRAVAYIL HOUSE, POOLAMANNA THUVVUR, PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **THE KEEZHUPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUNIYIL KEEZHUPARAMBU.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673639.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-04-2012,ALONG WITH WPC. NO.695 OF 2012 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **W.P.(C) NO.668/2012** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AS NO.A3-7527/11 DTD. 6.12.2011.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **tss** # **W.P.(C) NO.668/2012** ## C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------WP(C).NO. 668 & 695 of 2012 --------------------------------Dated this the 9th day of April, 2012 ## JUDGMENT Applications for building permit submitted by the petitioners in these cases were rejected through Ext.P1 proceedings assigning the reason that the properties in question was reclaimed in an unauthorised manner. According to the petitioners, the properties in question remain converted long back and merely because the property had undergone conversion the building permit cannot be declined. It is contended that the conversion will not in any manner violate the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is mentioned that, as revealed from the revenue records, the description of the property is 'Nilam' (wet land) and during the site inspection it was revealed that the reclamation was done either by the petitioner or predecessor without any valid order or any authority. According to the respondent, reclamation will offend the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land WP(C). Nos.668 & 695 of 2012 2 and Wet Land Act 2008. For allowing any such construction, permit under the said statute need be obtained. 3. It is settled law by this time through various decisions of this court in **Shahnaz Shukkoor vs. Chelannur Grama Panchayat (2009(3) KLT 899), in Praveen vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010(2) KHC 499(DB) and in Jafarkhan vs. K.A.Kochumakkar and others (2012 (1) KHC 523 (DB)** that the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Welt Land Act has no retrospective operation and if the land remains converted much prior to the enactment of the said statute, the property cannot be described as 'paddy land' or 'wet land' coming within the definition of the said Act. No violation of the provisions of the said Act can be alleged in such cases. It is held that mere description of the property in the revenue records is not a criteria for deciding the nature of the land and that the decision with respect to grant of building permit need be taken on the basis of the ground reality existing. 4. In view of the settled legal position I am of the view that the reasons assigned in Ext.P1 is unsustainable. Hence WP(C). Nos.668 & 695 of 2012 3 these writ petitions are allowed. Exts.P1 in both the cases are hereby quashed. 5. The Secretary of the respondent Panchayat is directed to consider the applications for building permit afresh, if necessary after conducting physical inspection and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. If it is convinced that the properties in question remain converted prior to enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet land Act, the building permit shall be granted, if the petitioners are otherwise eligible and if the applications are otherwise in order. A final decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C). Nos.668 & 695 of 2012 4 WP(C). Nos.668 & 695 of 2012 5