Statutes governing land use must be harmoniously interpreted to protect rights granted under different legislation.

JUDGMENT :

HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.

The petitioner, a resident of Thalassery, Kannur District, has filed the captioned writ petition contending that he owns some properties in the Thalassery Municipality as evidenced by Ext.P1 document of the year 2016. He further states that though an application seeking a building permit for the construction of a residential building was filed before the Municipality, the same is returned pursuant to Ext.P3 communication dated 30.05.2017, making reference to the development plan of the year 2007, as per which the property is included in the “agricultural zone”. It is further pointed out that since the property in question was included in the data bank under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), he approached the District Level Authorised Committee, pointing out that he does not have any other site for the construction of a residential building and the Committee by Ext.P4 dated 22.06.2018 found that the petitioner is to be permitted to fill the paddy land, for the limited purpose of construction of the residential building. It is with reference to the aforesaid proceedings at Ext.P4, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order at Ext.P3 referred to above.

2. I have heard Sri.R.Surendran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.I.V.Pramod, the learned counsel for the respondent Municipality.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent Municipality seeks to rely on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Regional Town Planner v. Muhammed Rasheed [2019 (3) KLT 433] to contend that the Municipality cannot consider the application for a building permit without reference to the zoning provisions under the development scheme. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Falcon Infrastructures Ltd. [2025 KLT OnLine 2155], to contend that the order at Ext.P4 needs to be extended the required effect, by construing the orders at Exts.P3 and P4 harmoniously.

4. True, with reference to the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules,1999 in comparison to the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Regional Town Planner (supra) has found that future constructions have to be made with specific reference to the terms of the development scheme, unless and until, the scheme is varied by the State Government, in accordance with the Provisions of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016. Therefore, at first blush, the learned counsel for the Municipality is justified in relying on the afore judgment, when he seeks to sustain the proceedings at Ext.P3.

5. At the same time, this Court notices the findings in Falcon Infrastructures Ltd. (supra). That was a case where the Division Bench considered the purport of the Act and the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, finding as under: -

“9. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that the exemption that is granted to the writ petitioner under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, is with a specific condition that the exemption will enure to him only so long as he utilises the land for the specific purposes, for which the exemption is granted. The exemption granted in respect of 24.5 Acres of land, mandates that the land in question must be used for commercial/industrial purposes and not for any other purpose. This would mean that if the writ petitioner decides to use the land for any other purpose, he would stand to lose the benefit of the exemption granted by the Government from the ceiling provisions under the Land Reforms Act. Under such circumstances, we fail to see how the authorities under the 2008 Act can in