Chandran K.R. Vs. Irinjalakuda Muncipality - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE14H DAY OF MARCH201423RD PHALGUNA, 1935 WP(C).No. 5856 of 2014 (F) --------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- CHANDRAN K.R. AGED65YEARS S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, KODAKKARA HOUSE, XII/258 PESHKAR ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., PIN68012. BY ADVS.SRI.AGINOV MATHAPPAN SMT.K.SHERIN MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. IRINJALAKUDA MUNCIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, IRINJALAKUDA P.O. PIN68012.

2. THE SECRETARY IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY, IRINJALAKUDA P.O. PIN68012. R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1403-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5856 of 2014 (F) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS -------------------------- EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 2723/08 OF IRINJALAKUDA SRO. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 2724/08 OF IRINJALAKUDA SRO. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED0611-2013 FOR201314. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 4447121 DTD. 07-11-2013. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE NUMBER R2-14990/13 DATED2312-13. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT NO. 8345 OF XIX/93 DATED2011-13. EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 1353 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED2011-2013. EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

OF REJECTION ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT SECRETARY TO MUNICIPALITY IRINJALAKUDA DATED1102-14. EXHIBIT P9- TRUE EXTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.5856 of 2014 ------------------------------- Dated 14th March, 2014 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.0128 and 0.0602 hectares of land, comprised in Survey No.673/1 of Manavalasseri Village in Thrissur District. For the purpose of constructing a residential building thereon the petitioner submitted an application for building permit. However, the same was rejected as per Ext.P8 order on the ground that the land in question is described in the possession certificate produced along with the application as nilam. At the same time, in Ext.P8 itself it is stated that the land in question was seen reclaimed on inspection. In Ext.P8 it is further stated that as per Section 14 of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short `the Wet Land Act') the Local Self Government Institutions shall not grant building permit in respect of land falling within the purview of the said Act. It is also stated therein that the petitioner who wants to reclaim the land for the purpose of any construction had not obtained necessary approval from the Local Level Monitoring Committee under the provisions of the Wet Land Act. This writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by the rejection of the said application. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P8 is unsustainable in the light of the decisions of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue WP(C).No.5856/2014 2 Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT617(DB) and Jafarkhan v. Kochumarakkar (2012 (1) KLT491(DB)).

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that an application for building permit cannot be rejected solely for the reason that the land in question was described in the revenue records or in a possession certificate as nilam in the light of the decision of this Court in Praveen's case (supra) . In Jafarkhan's case (supra) this Court held that if the surrounding properties of the land in question were already reclaimed and constructions were effected thereon, there will not be any justification to compel the glorified land owner to retain the said land as a waste land. In the contextual situation, I am of the view that the decision of this Court in Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2014 (1) KLT774 also assumes relevance. In the said decision, this Court held that a paddy field, which is not cultivable, could not be left unutilized merely for the reason that the same is included in the Draft Data Bank by the Local Level Monitoring Committee. In the light of the decisions referred above, I am of the view WP(C).No.5856/2014 3 that the decision taken on the application submitted by the petitioner as per Ext.P8 requires a reconsideration. To enable the second respondent to consider the same Ext.P8 is set aside. Needless to say that while reconsidering the same the factual position whether the land in question was reclaimed prior to the coming into force of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Kerala), whether the land in question is lying conterminous or contiguous with paddy land, whether it is cultivable and whether it is surrounded by flats, villas and other reclaimed land shall also be taken into account. The second respondent is directed to conduct an inspection into the property in question bearing in mind the decisions referred above and the observations in this judgment and then reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit. Such an inspection and consequential decision shall be taken expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS