High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of

WP(C) Nos. 4849 of 2025 & 4854 of 2025

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 4849 OF 2025 & WP(C) NO. 4854 OF 2025
Neutral Citation:2025:KER:14982

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date
2025-02-21
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petitions disposed of; Ext.P4 quashed; Secretary, Peerumedu Grama Panchayath directed to reconsider Ext.P3 applications without taking into account the plantation description in revenue records; orders to be passed within one month from receipt of copy of judgment; government proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act may continue if already initiated; overall, development is allowed with adherence to land-reforms safeguards.
Final Disposition
Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Joseph Michael Kallivayalil
  • Don Joseph (corrected to Joseph Abraham)

Respondents

  • Peerumedu Grama Panchayath, Peerumedu Grama Panchayath Office, Peerumed, AZHUTHA P.O, IDUKKI, PIN - 685531
  • The Secretary, Peerumedu Grama Panchayath, Peerumedu Grama Panchayath Office, Peerumed, AZHUTHA P.O, IDUKKI, PIN - 685531
  • The State of Kerala, rep. by the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN - 695001
  • The District Collector, IDUKKI Collectorate, IDUKKI, Kuyilimala, Painav P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
  • The Tahsildar (Land Records), Peerumedu, Peerumedu Taluk Office, Peerma de Rd, Peerma de, AZHUTHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685531
  • The Village Officer, Peerumade, Peerumade Village Office, Peerumade, IDUKKI District, PIN - 685531

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • George Sebastian
  • • Aditya T.P.
  • • Antony Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Joice George, SC
  • • Amminikutty K., Sr.GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitions challenge the Peerumedu Grama Panchayath’s rejection of building-permit applications for plots revenue-recorded as “plantation.” The Panchayath argued that granting construction would violate statutory provisions under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Counsel for the petitioners contend that labeling a property as plantation in revenue records cannot by itself bar a building permit and rely on precedents to support permit-issuance, arguing for a cautious balance between development needs and statutory safeguards. The respondents counter that allowing construction on plantation lands would undermine land-reform objectives and that Ext.P4 orders were properly grounded in existing law. The court notes that Elias T.V. v. Sub Collector, Wayanad; Mathew K. Jacob v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority; and District Collector v. Sajith Lal are supportive authorities and that these decisions were followed in Exts.P5–P7. Ultimately, the court holds that mere plantation description cannot automatically authorize rejection of permit applications—the government may still act under the Kerala Land Reforms Act—so Ext.P4 is quashed and Ext.P3 applications must be reconsidered without reliance on plantation descriptors, within one month. The judgment disposes of the petitions while allowing ongoing land-reforms proceedings where applicable, thereby permitting development with regulatory safeguards.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Reforms Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the revenue-record plantation description cannot be used to deny building permits; they cite Elias T.V. v. Sub Collector, Wayanad; Mathew K. Jacob v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority; and District Collector v. Sajith Lal as authorities supporting their position that mere plantation labeling should not preclude permit grant, and that Ext.P4 should be reconsidered.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that permitting construction on plantation lands would contravene the Kerala Land Reforms Act; revenue records labeling lands as plantation provides a valid basis for denial, and Ext.P4 reflects proper exercise of statutory authority.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Elias T.V. And Others v. Sub Collector, Wayanad and Others2019 (2) KLT 391PositiveCited as supportive authority; the court notes that the decision aligns with petitioners’ view that plantation description alone cannot justify denial of permit.
Mathew K. Jacob v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority2018 (4) KLT 913PositiveQuoted as supportive precedent affirming that plantation labeling does not automatically bar building permissions.
District Collector v. Sajith Lal2023 KLT online 1225PositiveFollowed in the extents of the judgments; cited as favorable authority for petitioners.

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 WP(C) Nos. 4849 of 2025 & 4854 of 2025 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` 2025:KER:14982 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` WP(C) NO. 4849 OF 2025 & WP(C) NO. 4854 OF 2025 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 2ND PHALGUNA, ``` ``` 1946 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 4854 OF 2025 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` JOSEPH MICHAEL KALLIVAYALIL, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O MICHAEL KALLIVAYALIL, 16, KALLIVAYALIL HOUSE, KUTTIKKANAM P.O., PEERUMEDU, IDUKKI, PIN - 685531 ``` ``` BY ADVS. GEORGE SEBASTIAN ADITYA T.P. ANTONY THOMAS ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE PEERUMEDU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PEERUMEDU GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PEERUMEDU, AZHUTHA P.O, IDUKKI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 685531`** - **`2 THE SECRETARY, PEERUMEDU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PEERUMEDU GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE,PEERUMEDU, AZHUTHA P.O, IDUKKI, PIN - 685531`** ``` 2025:KER:14982 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` WP(C) NO. 4849 OF 2025 & WP(C) NO. 4854 OF 2025 ``` - **`3 THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`** - **`4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI COLLECTORATE ,IDUKKI, KUYILIMALA, PAINAV P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685603`** - **`5 THE TAHSILDAR(LAND RECORDS), PEERUMEDU, PEERUMEDU TALUK OFFICE, PEERMADE RD, PEERMADE, AZHUTHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685531`** - **`6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PEERUMADU,PEERUMADE VILLAGE OFFICE, PEERUMADE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685531`** ``` BY ADV ADV JOICE GEORGE, SC ADV AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).4849/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:14982 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` WP(C) NO. 4849 OF 2025 & WP(C) NO. 4854 OF 2025 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 4849 OF 2025 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` DON JOSEPH, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. XAVIER, PRAKKATTU HOUSE * MOOLAVATTAM P.O., NATTAKAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686012 ``` ``` *THE FATHER'S NAME OF THE PETITIONER APPEARING IN THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.02.2025 OF WP(C) 4849/2025 IS CORRECTED AS 'JOSEPH ABRAHAM' INSTEAD OF XAVIER AND THE HOUSE NAME AS ‘PRAKKAT HILLS' INSTEAD OF PRAKKATTU HOUSE AS PER ORDER DATED 01.04.2025 IN IA 01/2025 IN WP(C) 4849/2025. ``` ``` BY ADVS. GEORGE SEBASTIAN ADITYA T.P. ANTONY THOMAS ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE PEERUMEDU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PEERUMEDU GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PEERUMEDU, AZHUTHA P.O, IDUKKI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 685531 ``` ``` 2025:KER:14982 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 4849 OF 2025 & WP(C) NO. 4854 OF 2025 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** - **`2 THE SECRETARY, PEERUMEDU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PEERUMEDU GRAMAPANCHAYATH OFFICE,PEERUMEDU, AZHUTHA P.O, IDUKKI, PIN - 685531`** - **`3 THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`** - **`4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI, KUYILIMALA, PAINAV P.O.,IDUKKI, PIN - 685603`** - **`5 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), PEERUMEDU, PEERUMEDU TALUK OFFICE, PEERMADE RD, PEERMADE, AZHUTHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685531`** - **`6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAPPARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE OFFICE, PEERUMADE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685501`** ``` BY ADV ADV JOICE GEORGE, SC ADV AMMINIKUTTY K., SR.GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).4854/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [102 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> 2025:KER:14982<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## **`WP(C) NO. 4849 OF 2025 & WP(C) NO. 4854 OF 2025`** ## **`JUDGMENT`** ## **`[WP(C) Nos.4854/2025, 4849/2025]`** In both these writ petitions, the issue involved is one and the same, i.e., the rejection of the applications submitted by the petitioners for building permits by the respondent Panchayat as per orders, which are produced as Ext.P4 in both these writ petitions, on the reason that the properties are described as ‘plantation’ in the revenue records. According to the respondents, granting permission to carry out construction in such a properties would amount to a violation of the statutory stipulations contained in the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 2. I have heard Sri.George Sebastian, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Joice George, learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat, Smt.Amminikutty K., learned Government Pleader for the respondents 3 to 6. 3. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that, the proceedings have been initiated against the ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [102 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> 2025:KER:14982<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## **`WP(C) NO. 4849 OF 2025 & WP(C) NO. 4854 OF 2025`** petitioner in W.P(C) No.4854/2025 under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 4. The specific contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered in favour of the petitioners as per the decisions rendered in **Elias T.V. And Others v. Sub Collector, Wayanad and Others [2019 (2) KLT 391], Mathew K. Jacob v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority [2018 (4) KLT 913]** and **District Collector v. Sajith Lal [2023 KLT online 1225],** which were followed in Exts.P5 to P7 judgments. 5. After perusing the records, I find that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered as per the judgments, wherein it was observed that the mere fact the property is described as ‘plantation’ in the revenue records will not enable the Grama Panchayat to reject the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit. However, such permission would not preclude the Government and the authorities concerned, from continuing or ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [102 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> 2025:KER:14982<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## **`WP(C) NO. 4849 OF 2025 & WP(C) NO. 4854 OF 2025`** initiating the proceedings under the provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act. In such circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of, quashing Ext.P4 with a direction to the Secretary to Peerumedu Grama Panchayath, the 2[nd] respondent in both these writ petitions, to reconsider Ext.P3 applications without taking into account the fact that the properties are mentioned as ‘plantation’ in the revenue records. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is clarified that, this will not preclude the Government from initiating appropriate proceedings or continuing the same, if any, already initiated, against the petitioners under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. ``` Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` ``` scs ``` ``` 2025:KER:14982 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`WP(C) NO. 4849 OF 2025 & WP(C) NO. 4854 OF 2025`** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4849/2025`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** - **`Exhibit P1`** ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT ``` - **`Exhibit P2`** ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 28.11.2024 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT ``` - **`Exhibit P3`** - **`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED 16.11.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.07.2022 IN WP(C) 4834/2022`** - **`Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.11.2022 IN WP(C) 30199/2022`** - **`Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2025 IN WP(C) 686/2025`** ``` 2025:KER:14982 ``` ``` 9 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`WP(C) NO. 4849 OF 2025 & WP(C) NO. 4854 OF 2025`** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4854/2025`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** - **`Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 05.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P2`** ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DATED 16.01.2025 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT ``` - **`Exhibit P3`** - **`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED 14.01.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.07.2022 IN WP(C) 4834/2022`** - **`Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.11.2022 IN WP(C) 30199/2022`** - **`Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2025 IN WP(C) 686/2025`**