IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 25581 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ T.N.CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, THURPUMADATHIL HOUSE, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER T.N.SUBRAMANYAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, THURPUMADATHIL HOUSE, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SHAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. VALLACHIRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VALLACHIRA P.O., PIN-680 562, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, VALLACHIRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VALLACHIRA P.O.-680 562, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. RAMADEVI.D., SECRETARY, VALLACHIRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VALLACHIRA P.O., PIN 680 562, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (DELETED AS PER ORDERD DATED 28.09.2011 IN IA.15454/2011) 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 & 2 ADVS. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH SRI. PRAJITH,SC R4 BY GOVERNMENT PEADER SMT.KOCHUMOL KODAVATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 25581 of 2011(W) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX -------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ------------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.5119/06 OF CHERPU SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/9/2009. EXHIBIT P3: PHOTO GRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT NATURE AND LIE OF THE LAND. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT DATED 21/7/2011 WPC.7668/2011. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/9/11 REJECTING APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : -------------------------------------- EXT.R2(A). COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT EXT.R2(B). COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 31.7.208 NUMBERED AS 4548/R.A1/08/LSG. EXTR2(C). COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 22.01.2011 NUMBERED AS 4545/R1/11/LSG. / TRUE CPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.25581 OF 2011 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P5 order and for a direction directing the 2nd respondent to grant building permit for constructing a residential building in the land owned by the petitioner comprised in Sy.No.382/2 in Arattupuzha Village in Thrissur Taluk. 2. The very same petitioner approached this Court for the very same relief by filing W.P.(C).No.7668/2011. This Court, by judgment dated 21/7/2011 marked as Ext.P4, quashed Ext.P3 order dated 29/9/2009 passed by the 2nd respondent and directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Ext.P5 is the order passed by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the direction of this Court in Ext.P4 judgment. The application for grant of building permit was -2- W.P.(C).No.25581/2011 rejected by the 2nd respondent. The reasons stated for rejection of the application is that the committee is convinced about the fact that the property was not reclaimed before 1999. 3. Petitioner obtained the property by virtue of Ext.P1 settlement deed executed by his father in the year 2006. In Ext.P1 the description of the property shows that it is a reclaimed land as on the date of Ext.P1 settlement deed. The 2nd respondent rejected the application originally by order dated 22/9/2009 for the reason that the land is described as reclaimed land in the revenue records. Subsequently, the matter was again considered and the application was rejected stating that the property was not a reclaimed land prior to 1999. 4. Subsequent to Ext.P4 judgment, site inspection was conducted by the local level monitoring committee constituted under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. This Court in Ext.P4 judgment noted the earlier decisions of this Court, wherein it was held that the nature of the property recorded in the village records as a paddy field is not a reason for -3- W.P.(C).No.25581/2011 rejecting the application for building permit and that the ground reality has to be considered before passing an order on the application for building permit. In this case even in Ext.P1 settlement deed executed by the father of the petitioner the nature of the property is stated as reclaimed land and not paddy field. That means, the nature of the property is not a wet land even on the date of settlement. This Court already observed in Ext.P4 judgment that nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court to contend that no building can be constructed in a reclaimed property. The provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 prohibits conversion of paddy land without the permission from the authority concerned. A reading of Ext.P1 itself shows that the property remained as a reclaimed land as on coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The inspection conducted by the local level monitoring committee also shows that part of the property remained as a reclaimed land. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that under Section 11 of the Act, on and from the date of -4- W.P.(C).No.25581/2011 commencement of the Act, the wet lands of the State shall be maintained as such and there shall be a total prohibition on reclamation of wet land and removal of sand therefrom. Therefore, it is contended that the land was reclaimed much before the Act came into force and the provisions of the Act has no application as far as the land is concerned. The question as to whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation was not considered while passing Ext.P5 order. It is also contended that even in cases when the land is paddy land and the provisions of the Act are applicable to it, the local level monitoring committee shall have powers to recommend filling up of 10 cents of land for construction of residential building for the owner of the land under Section 5(3)(1) of the Act. In the earlier order passed by the 2nd respondent the only reason stated was that the land is described as reclaimed land in the revenue records and therefore the application was rejected. Now the reason for rejection of the application is that there is no proof as to whether the property was reclaimed prior to 1999. Even if the property was reclaimed subsequent to 1999, nothing prevents under law the 2nd -5- W.P.(C).No.25581/2011 respondent to issue building permit to the petitioner so long as the provisions in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 are not violated. According to the petitioner, the property is a dry land suitable for making construction, that the surrounding property owners constructed building in their property and all the properties are enjoyed by the respective owners by making constructions. In these circumstances, the decision of the 2nd respondent-Panchayat rejecting the application for building permit cannot be sustained. In the result, Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to issue permit to the petitioner, if the application is otherwise in order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.