Building permit decisions must consider actual land conditions rather than rely solely on revenue record designations.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the owner in possession of

32.5 cents of land comprised in Sy. No.326/2B, 326/4, 326/8-10 of Thalikkulam Village, within the limits of the Thalikkulam Grama Panchayath. According to the petitioner, the said property is a dry land. So the petitioner wanted to construct a residential building in the said property and he constructed a residential building. Unfortunately, the petitioner could not obtain any approved plan and building permit, from the 1st respondent before the construction of the building. Now, he has filed an application, seeking regularization of the said building, but, the 1st respondent rejected the application, stating that the property is described as ‘nanja’, in the revenue records. This is the grievance highlighted in this writ petition.

2. Going by Ext.P2 order, it is seen that the petitioner’s application, seeking regularisation is rejected on the sole reason that the property described is ‘nanja’ in the revenue records. This Court considered the question, whether building permit can be denied on the basis of the description of the property in the revenue records and held that building permit cannot be rejected on the basis of the description in the revenue records, without considering the ground of reality i.e., the actual lie of the land on the ground.

3. It was held in Shahanaz Shukkoor v.

Chelannur Grama Panchayat [ 2009 (3) KLT 899 ] as follows:

“The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 , deals with the conversion of lands which are wetland or paddy fields, on the basis of actual fact situation and not depending on the description of the property in the revenue records. The definition of the terms 'paddy field' and 'wetland' in the said Act is sufficient material to hold that the said statute operates on the basis of the facts as they exist on ground realities and not on any quality or type of land, depending on its description in the title document.”

4. In Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2010 (2) KLT 617 (DB)], this Court held that mere description of the property in the revenue records by itself may not be conclusive and may not estop a party from producing materials to show otherwise.

5. It is true that the petitioner has not obtained a building permit, before the construction of the building. But, according to Rule 143 of the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules,2011(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), building which was constructed, without obtaining an approved plan and permit can also be regularized, if the construction of the building does not violate any of the provisions under the Rules. Here, the respondent has no case that the construction is made in violation of the provisions of Rules. Here, the sole reason for rejecting the application is that the property is described, as ‘nanja’ in the revenue records. It is pertinent to note that the Panchayath has no case that the land is one converted or reclaimed, after the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 . If that be so, the prohibition under Section 3 will not come into play and building permit cannot be declined under Section

14 of the Act.

6. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P2 will stand set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to conduct a site inspection in the property and consider the application afresh, on the basis of the actual lie of the land, to be found on the ground, notwithstanding the description in the revenue records, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.