Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12172
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
ANISH GANGADHARAN – Appellant
Versus
ALUVA MUNICIPALITY – Respondent
WP(C) 6861/2022
K.B.GANGESH, SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH, ATHIRA A.MENON, K.T.THOMAS
Mistakes in revenue records cannot justify the rejection of building permits when property classification is consistently verified as 'purayidom'.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - The petitioners challenged the rejection of their building permit application based on incorrect land classification in the BTR. The property was consistently recorded as 'purayidom' in all relevant documents. (Paras 2, 6)
(B) Administrative Errors - The court emphasized that mistakes in revenue records should not impede the issuance of building permits when the property is verified as 'purayidom'. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners purchased land classified as garden land in all records but faced permit rejection due to a misclassification in the BTR as 'nilam'. (Paras 2, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought, directing the issuance of an occupancy certificate and acceptance of their application to rectify land classification. (Paras 6, 7)
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the building permit rejection based on incorrect land classification and the authority's responsibility to rectify such errors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the consistent classification of the property as 'purayidom' in all records should prevail over erroneous entries in the BTR, reinforcing the principle that administrative errors should not obstruct rightful claims. (Paras 6, 7)
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext P5 order and for other consequential reliefs.
2. Petitioners purchased a certain extent of land as per Ext.P1 sale deed. In Ext.P2 tax receipt, Ext.P3 possession certificate and Ext.P4 thandaper account, the property has been described as garden land (purayidom). When the petitioners applied for a building permit, the same was rejected as per Ext.P5 on the ground that the petitioners have to update BTR extract with the new survey number (13/16-2). It is submitted that the petitioners' properties are all surrounded by buildings and on the southern side, the Aluva Municipal Road is situated and all these properties are shown as garden land in the village records.
The petitioners' property is also not included in Ext.P7 data bank. Though the property is shown as garden land in all village records, in the BTR with corresponding old survey number, the property is described as 'nilam.' When the petitioners approached the third respondent for updating the BTR with re-survey number it was declined and the petitioners were advised to submit a Form 6 application. The said application submitted has been rejected by the system itself as per Ext.P9 showing an error that there is no corresponding land available in the database in the above-said survey number as “nilam”. Petitioners submit that after the re-survey, the petitioners' property has been classified as garden land as evidenced from Exts. P1 to P4.
3. Based on the statement filed by the 1st respondent. It is submitted that though the property is shown as garden land in the other records, the same is not updated in the BTR and therefore the application submitted by the petitioners was rejected with a direction to update BTR extract with the new survey number.
4. Learned Government pleader upon instructions submitted that the property comprised in survey Nos. 513/5B, 513/5B2, 513/5C was mentioned as purayidom and survey No. 518/6B is mentioned as “nilam” in the BTR. During the re- survey, the first set of old survey numbers was included in one resurvey number as puriyadom and second one i.e. 518/6B is included in another resurvey as 'nilam'. However, at that time, by mistake, these were together included in one single Resurvey number, ie., Resurvey 13 of Town block 61 in two different classifications. Before the computerisation of land records, that was not an issue as both classes could be handled separately, but after computerisation of the land records, in the ReLis software, in which Revenue department has land data, the resurvey number is unique.
Hence part of one resurvey number cannot be added as 'Nilam' and other as 'Purayidom'. At present, the ReLis software include 49.63 Ares of land in Resurvey 13 of Town block 61 in Aluva West Village as Purayidom.
5. I have considered the rival contentions of both sides.
6. Admittedly when the petitioners purchased the property, in all the revenue records, the property has been shown as 'purayidom' as evidenced from Exts.P1 to P4. The property has not been included in the data bank which proves that the property was not a paddy land as on 2008, the date on which the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 , came into force. When the Municipality rejected the request of the petitioners for issuance of a building permit as the property was shown as 'nilam' in the BTR and an application in Form-6 was submitted, the authorities have rejected the same stating that no land is available with “nilam/nanja”. Taking into consideration the above said circumstance, this Court as per order dated 05.04.2022, issued the following order.
“Admit. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 2 and 3. Learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the 1st respondent.
There will be an interim direction to the 1st respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioners for building permit and to provisionally issue the building permit, in view of the fact that the pr
