SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 49187

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J
ANAS MUSTAFA – Appellant
Versus
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 7851/2019



A building permit application can be rejected based on land classification under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act without legal repercussion if the statutory mandates are not observed.

Headnote:

Land - Building Permit - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Sections 2, 3, 27A - The court upheld the rejection of the building permit application due to the classification of land as 'nilam' and the necessity of following statutory provisions for changing land use.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a joint owner of land, sought to quash the rejection of his building permit application, arguing that he had submitted a proper application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the court should interfere with the rejection of the building permit based on the classification of the land as 'nilam'.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that proper adherence to the statutory framework under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act is mandatory for any application regarding land use changes.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner who is stated to be a joint owner of 46.4 Acres of land in Survey No.128/3 of Pullazhi Village covered by Ext.P1 sale deed bearing No.1320/1/1993 of SRO, Ayyanthole and Ext.P2 tax receipt dated 28.04.2018 has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 order dated 11.06.2018 issued by the Secretary of the 4th respondent Corporation, where by the application made by the petitioner for building permit stands rejected for the reason that the property in question is 'nilam', as per revenue records. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent to grant building permit to construct building in the property mentioned in Ext.P1 sale deed. Further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Ayyanthole to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 application dated 01.03.2019 made by the petitioner, invoking the provision under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 seeking permission to change the nature of the land.

2. On 15.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent sought some time to get instructions.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel for Thrissur Corporation representing respondents 4 and 5.

4. One of the issues that arise for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P6 communication dated 11.06.2018 of the Assistant Engineer in the office of the 4th respondent Corporation, whereby the application made by the petitioner dated 07.05.2018 for building permit stands rejected, based on the report of the Building Inspector dated 30.05.2018.

5. By Ext.P6 communication issued by the Assistant Engineer in the office of the 4th respondent Corporation, the petitioner has been informed that his application for building permit stands rejected, since the class of the land covered by Ext.P1 sale deed is 'nilam'. It is thereafter that the petitioner moved Ext.P7 application, invoking the provisions under Section 27A of the Conservation of Paddyland and Wetland Act, 2008, seeking change of nature of the land covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. The submission of Ext.P7 application, would make it explicitly clear that, the reason stated in Ext.P6 communication issued by the Assistant Engineer in the office of the 4th respondent Corporation whereby the application for building permit made by the petitioner stands rejected is perfectly legal, which warrants no interference in this Writ Petition.

7. Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 was enacted to conserve the paddy land and wet land and to restrict the conversion or reclamation thereof, in order to promote growth in the agricultural sector and to sustain the ecological system, in the State of Kerala. Clause (iii) of Section 2 of the Act define the term 'conversion' to mean the situation whereby, land that has been under paddy farming and its allied constructions like drainage channels, ponds, canals, bunds and ridges are put to use for any other purpose. Clause (xii) of defines the term 'paddy land' to mean all types of land situated in the State where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow, and includes its allied constructions like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals; Clause (xviii) of defines the term 'wetland' to mean land lying between terrestrial and aquatic systems, where the water table is usually at or near the surface or which is covered by shallow water or characterised by the presence of sluggishly moving or standing water, saturating the soil with water and includes backwaters, estuary, fens, lagoon, mangrove

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top