Local authorities cannot compel owners to obtain S. 27A conversion permission under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 for buildings constructed under valid permits where the land is not classified as paddy land or wetland.

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10th day of June, 2026

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to number the building and issue occupancy certificate without insist any order under section 27A of the Kerala conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008 within a reasonable time.

ii. such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the nature of this case.

iii. a direction to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular document produced with this writ petition.

iv. call for the records leading exhibit p4 and quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorary. "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner and her husband are owners of 7.71889 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.61/99 of Edakkara Village in Nilambur Taluk, Malappuram District. According to the petitioner, the property is a dry land and not included in the Data Bank. The 2nd respondent granted Ext.P2 building permit in the name of the petitioner and her husband on 28.01.2015, after the site inspection and reports from the village Officer and Agriculture Officer, is the submission. The petitioner completed the construction of residential house in the above property in the year 2016 itself is the further submission. Now the petitioner is residing in the house constructed as per Ext.P2 building permit, and approached the respondents for occupancy certificate and number the building. The 2nd respondent sent Ext.P4 letter to the petitioner stating that the building number will be granted after obtaining permission under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (‘Act, 2008’, for brevity).

3. The petitioner relied the judgment of this Court in Cheranelloor Grama Panchayath Ernakulam and another Vs. Joe Thattil [2020 (5) KHC 669], Leela Santu and another Vs. Secretary, Kothamangalam Municipality and others [2020 (4) KHC 696], Davis.E.J. V/s. Secretary, Kumarakom Grama Panchayath [2022 KHC 385]& Kenz Inn Commercial Complex Ltd. Vs. Thrissur Municipal Corporation [2022 KHC 7314].

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat.

5. After hearing both sides, I think there is some force in the arguments of the petitioner. In the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the above said judgments, the matter is to be reconsidered by the Panchayat. To facilitate the Panchayat to reconsider the matter, Ext.P4 can be set aside.

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat submitted that, the petitioner has not submitted any application for occupancy certificate. The petitioner is free to submit an application to that effect also.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) Ext.P4 is set aside.

(ii) The petitioner is free to submit an application for occupancy certificate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(iii) Once such an application is filed, the 2nd respondent will consider the application for occupancy certificate in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in Cheranelloor Grama Panchayath Ernakulam’s case (supra), Leela Santu’s case (supra), Davis.E.J.’s case (supra) and Kenz Inn Commercial Complex Ltd. case (supra), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the application.