High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-02-12Writ petition disposed; Ext. P2 set aside; peti...

V. D. Suresh v. Adimaly Grama Panchayath and Village Officer, Mannamkandam, Idukki District

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 22905 of 2011 (K)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2016-02-12
Court Decision / Holding: Ext. P2 will stand set aside and the petitioner is allowed to proceed with construction in accordance with Ext. P1 building permit.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed; Ext. P2 set aside; petitioner allowed to proceed with construction as per Ext. P1.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V.D. Suresh, S/o. Damodharan, Varakil House, 9/67 Rail Road, Aluva, Ernakulam District

Respondents

Adimaly Grama Panchayath represented by its Secretary, Adimaly, Idukki District
Village Officer, Mannamkandam Village, Idukki District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Babu S. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Latheesh Sebastian
• Sri. V.K. RafEEK, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, V.D. Suresh, owner in possession of 19 cents in Survey No. 889/2011 and 15 cents in another survey in Mannankandam Village, Idukki District, obtained Ext. P1 building permit from the Adimaly Grama Panchayath to construct a dwelling. After commencing construction, the 2nd respondent issued Ext. P2 stop memo directing cessation of work on the ground that the property is described as Nilam in revenue records. The petitioner argues that the land is dry, as evidenced by Ext. P3 photographs showing age-old trees and dry surroundings, and that the actual lie of the land, not the revenue description, must govern under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The court recalls several precedents (Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat; Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P. v. State of Kerala; Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer; Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner) holding that decisions must be grounded in actual facts rather than mere descriptions in title documents. It is held that relying solely on the revenue-record description damages the statutory objective. Consequently, Ext. P2 is quashed and the petitioner is allowed to proceed with construction in accordance with Ext. P1. The decision emphasizes that ground realities govern wetland land determinations and not merely Nilam descriptions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008Section 3 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008Section 14 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ground realities prevail over revenue-record descriptions under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008; mere description of land as Nilam cannot bar building permit where actual land status warrants.
Descriptions in title deeds or revenue records are not automatically determinative of wetland status under the Act; factual verification is essential.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext. P2 stop memo was issued without ascertaining the actual site conditions, despite Ext. P1 permit. The description of the land as Nilam in revenue records cannot, by itself, justify denial of the permit, particularly where Ext. P3 photographs show dry land and the land status on ground reality contradicts the register description. The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 aims at preventing wetland conversion based on actual conditions, not mere title-document descriptions. Citing Shahanaz Shukkoor, Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P., Jalaja Dileep, and Praveen, the petitioner argues that ground realities govern such decisions; Ext. P2 should be quashed and construction allowed per Ext. P1.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Ext. P2 was issued to enforce the wetland act based on the description of the land as Nilam in revenue records. The 2nd respondent’s stop memo reflects statutory restrictions under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, and cannot be overridden by a building permit from the Panchayath. The proceeding should be guided by revenue-record descriptions unless ground truth establishes otherwise.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannur Grama Panchayat	2009 (3) KLT 899	Positive	The decision reiterates that wetland/paddy land status under the 2008 Act is determined by actual ground facts rather than revenue-record descriptions, supporting the court’s emphasis on ground realities.
Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P. v. State of Kerala and Another	2012 (3) KLT 86	Positive	Acknowledges that the lie of the land can influence permissions for construction, aligning with the principle that ground realities govern such decisions.
Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2012 (3) KLT 333	Positive	Holds that description in title deeds or revenue records is not conclusive if land had been reclaimed before the Act, reinforcing the ground-reality approach.
Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner	2010 (2) KLT 617 (DB)	Positive	Principle that mere description in revenue records may not be conclusive and other materials may be produced to show the true 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 V. D. Suresh v. Adimaly Grama Panchayath and Village Officer, Mannamkandam, Idukki District 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 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/23RD MAGHA, 1937** **WP(C).No. 22905 of 2011 (K)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------** **V.D.SURESH, S/O.DAMODHARAN, VARAKIL HOUSE, 9/67 RAIL ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. THE ADIMALY GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ADIMALY IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN- 685 561.** **2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685 561.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.RAFEEK** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 22905 of 2011 (K)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE ADIMALY GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED, 8-12-2010.** **EXHIBIT P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDANT DATED 3-6-2011 AS NO.374/11.** **EXHIBIT P3:- TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** **OKB** **True copy** **P.A. to Judge** ## K.HARILAL, J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ## W.P.(C) No.22905 of 2011 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dated this the 12[th] day of February, 2016 JUDGMENT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The petitioner is the owner in possession of 19 cents of property comprised in Survey No.889/2011 and another 15 cents comprised in another survey number of the Mannankandam Village in Idukki District, by virtue of document No.758/2010 of the S.R.O., Devikulam dated 31/03/2010. The petitioner wanted to construct a residential house in the said property and he had submitted an application for getting building permit to the 1[st] respondent Panchayat with all necessary documents and plan of the proposed construction. After considering the application and the documents, the 1[st] respondent issued Ext.P1 building permit to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner had started construction under Ext.P1 and the basement of the building was completed. At that point of time, to the utter shock and dismay of the petitioner, the 2[nd] **WP(C).22905/11-K :2:** respondent issued Ext.P2 stop memo directing the petitioner to stop the construction of the building, stating that the property, in which the construction is sought to be made, is shown as 'Nilam' in the Revenue Records. According to the petitioner, the property in which he made construction is a dry land and the same is evidenced by Ext.P3 series of photographs. There are coconut palms and other trees having age of more than 30 years and the properties surrounding the petitioner's property are dry lands, wherein aged trees are standing and residential buildings are constructed. So also, Ext.P2 stop memo has been issued without considering the ground reality, i.e., the actual lie of the land. It is under this circumstance, this writ petition is filed with a prayer to quash Ext.P2. The legality and propriety of the reasonings whereby the 2[nd] respondent issued Ext.P2 stop memo are challenged in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned **WP(C).22905/11-K :3:** counsel for the 1[st] respondent. 3. Admittedly, the 1[st] respondent had issued Ext.P1 building permit and the petitioner started construction under Ext.P1. Going by Ext.P2 stop memo, it is seen that the said stop memo had been issued directing the petitioner to stop construction on the sole reason that the description of the property shown in the Revenue Records is 'Nilam'. The 2[nd] respondent has no case that the property is one converted or reclaimed after the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. If that be so, the prohibition under Section 3 of the said Act will not come into play and the building permit cannot be refused under Section 14 of the said Act. Therefore, the 1[st] respondent is justified in granting the building permit. The question, whether the building permit can be refused on the basis of mere description of the property in the Revenue Records as Nilam, was considered in various decisions by this Court, which are given below: **WP(C).22905/11-K :4:** ## 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 Court held that the present lie of the land can be taken into consideration while granting permission to make construction. 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, **WP(C).22905/11-K :5:** before the commencement of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. 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 principle that can be culled out from the above decisions is that merely on the basis of the description of the land in the Revenue Records as 'Nilam', building permit cannot be denied in contravention to the ground realities as regards the actual lie of the land. 8. Going by Ext.P2 stop memo, it is seen that the 2[nd] respondent has not ascertained the actual lie of the land on the ground and Ext.P2 is issued mechanically on the basis of the description of the property in the Revenue Records only and the same is impermissible in view of the decisions laid down by this Court, which are referred above. **WP(C).22905/11-K :6:** 9. Consequently, Ext.P2 will stand set aside and the petitioner is allowed to proceed with construction in accordance with Ext.P1 building permit. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- K. HARILAL, JUDGE rsr/okb.