Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
K.M.ANILKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
VYTHIRI GRAMA PANCHAYAT – Respondent
WP(C)/38397/2022
Permit - Building Permit Application - Kerala Land Reforms Act - Section 81 - The court examined the rejection of a Building Permit application on grounds of land exemption, affirming that purpose restrictions do not bar alternative uses if legally permissible.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an owner of land in Chundale Village, applied for a Building Permit which was rejected because the land was classified as exempt under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, asserting that no buildings could be constructed on such land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that previous rulings indicated that exempted land could be used for other purposes. The rejection of the Building Permit was deemed unjustifiable and required reconsideration.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the Building Permit based on the land's exemption under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the land's exempted status did not inherently prevent its use for other purposes, referencing prior judgments that supported flexibility in land use.
Final Decision: The rejection of the Building Permit was overturned, and the application must be reconsidered by the authority.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2022 The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent-Secretary to the Grama Panchayat in not issuing Building Permit to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner in possession of 24.65 Ares of land in Chundale Village, Vythiri Taluk in Wayand District. According to the petitioner, the land originally belonged to Sunderlingam Estate and Balaji Estate and was devolved upon the predecessors of the petitioner.
3. After the purchase of land by the petitioner, he submitted Ext.P4 application for Building Permit before the 2nd respondent-Secretary to the Grama Panchayat for construction of a Special Residential building. The application stands rejected as per Ext.P5 communication. It is aggrieved by Ext.P5 that the petitioner is before this Court.
4. A perusal of Ext.P5 would show that the application for Building Permit has been declined by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the land in question is one which was exempted under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. According to respondents 1 and 2, no building can be constructed on an exempted land.
5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel denied all the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. When an application for Building Permit was received, the matter was referred to the Village Officer, Vythiri Grama Panchayat by the 2nd respondent. The Village Officer has informed the Secretary to the Grama Panchayat that the land in question was part of a larger area to which exemption was granted under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Therefore, the land is a plantation land, informed the Village Officer. It is based on the communication of the Village Officer that the application for Building Permit was rejected.
6. Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent-Village Officer by filing a Statement. It is submitted that the land in question comes in TLB No.1377/73 Arunachala Nadar, ARST Estate Vythiri and is fully exempted under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 . Ext.R3(a) is the TLB List. The land possessed by the petitioner is exempted land and it cannot be converted to any other purposes other than the status for which the exemption is granted. The purpose of the petitioner is to convert the land and to construct buildings for other purposes, which is against the law and provisions of the , contended the Government Pleader.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and
2 and the learned Government Pleader representing the
3rd respondent.
8. The petitioner has purchased the land in the year
2019. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application for Building Permit before the 2nd respondent. The application has been rejected by Ext.P5 communication for the sole reason that the land falls under exempted land under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The point of argument of respondents 1 and 2 is that since the exemption is granted as the land was a plantation land, no building construction can be permitted in the land.
9. The same issue was considered by this Court in theKinallur Rock Sand (M/s.) v. State of Kerala and others [ 2021 (2) KLT 351 ] and this Court has held that there is no prohibition in using an exempted land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act for a different purpose and such conditions cannot be a reason to decline permission for using the land for a different purpose. The said judgment was followed by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.17691 of 2022. Therefore, Ext.P5 order of the 2nd respondent cannot be justified in view of the law laid down by this Court.
10. In the circumstances of the case, Ext.P5 order of the 2nd respondent-Secretary to the Grama Panchayat is set aside. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent- Secretary to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
