Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17594
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
ACHAMMA KURIAN – Appellant
Versus
CORPORATION OF COCHIN – Respondent
WP(C) 12741/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED, SMT.DEEPA SASIDHARAN
For the Respondents: SMT.V.P.REJITHA (PUZHAKKALIDOM), SRI JANARDHANA SHENOY SR GP, SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
A one-line order lacking sufficient reasoning for permit rejection is unsustainable under law, especially when prior valid occupancy exists.
Headnote:The petition filed under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 seeks to quash an order rejecting a building permit application due to property classification as 'Nilam'. The court found the rejection unjustifiable due to lack of reasoning in the order. The petitioner had valid occupancy before the amended law came into effect, thus preventing the order's enforcement. Therefore, the petition was upheld, directing reconsideration of the application with adherence to established legal principles.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 12741 OF 2025 PETITIONER:
ACHAMMA KURIAN, AGED 65 YEARS W/O P.C. KURIAN , 45/20843 H, PAINUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, POTTAKUZHI P.O., PACHALAM S.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682012 BY ADVS.
SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED SMT.DEEPA SASIDHARAN RESPONDENTS:
1 CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 682011
2 THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULUM, COCHIN, PIN - 682011
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011 BY ADV SMT.V.P.REJITHA (PUZHAKKALIDOM)
SC SRI JANARDHANA SHENOY SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2025 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order and direct the 2nd respondent to issue the building permit to the petitioner, without insisting for an order under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules framed thereunder (in short ‘Act and Rules’) .
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.27 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.7/1-10 of Ernakulam Village, covered by Ext.P1 basic tax receipt. Even though the petitioner’s property is classified as ‘Nilam’ in the revenue records, the same has not been included in the data bank prepared under the Act. Ext.P2 occupancy certificate substantiates that the petitioner had constructed a two storied building, having total extent of 161.68 square meters on the ground and first floor, and 12.25 square meters stair-case, as per building permit No.MOP7-251/2008. In order to construct an additional floor on the existing building covered by Ext.P2 occupancy certificate, the petitioner has submitted an application before the 2nd respondent for a building permit. However, the 2nd respondent by a cryptic one-line Ext.P6 order has rejected the application stating that the petitioner’s property is classified as ‘Nilam’ in the basic tax register (‘BTR’, for short). Ext.P6 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is passed without any application of mind. Therefore, Ext.P6 may be quashed.
3. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that, the petitioner had submitted a K-SMART application on 20.03.2025. There is already a building having a total plinth area of 350 m2 on the ground, first and second floors. The petitioner's application is to permit additional constructions on the second and third floor with a plinth area of 263.1m2. In view of Section 27A of the Act, the petitioner can be given the benefit of exemption only once, as per Exhibit R1 circular. Since, there is already an existing building, the petitioner’s application cannot be entertained. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, none of the reasons pleaded in the counter affidavit are reflected in Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 order is a cryptic one-line order. Moreover, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Global Educational Trust v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2020 (6) KHC 538 ], Section 27A is not applicable to the facts of the case, as the building was constructed in 2009 and Ext.P2 occupancy certificate was already issued. The amended was incorporated in the statute only on 30.12.2017. Therefore, the contentions of the respondents is untenable.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already constructed a two storied building covered by Ext.P2 occupancy certificate issued on 22.09.2009. The petitioner's property has not been included in the data bank. It is only in the revenue record that the petit
