Mohammed Jabir v. The Alangad Grama Panchayath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/20TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No.15847 of 2015 (E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER:
------------------- MOHAMMED JABIR,AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.SAIDUMOHAMMED VEERAN, KIZAN MANZIL,MADATHUMPADI, PANAYIKULAM P.O,ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 511.
BY ADVS.SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE RESPONDENT'S:
------------------------- 1.
THE ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NEERIKOD,ALANGAD,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683511. 2.
THE SECRETARY,ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NEERIKOD,ALANGAD,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 511.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN,S.C THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
pk
WP(C).No. 15847 of 2015 (E) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
------------------------------------ P1TRUE PHOTOCOPY SETTLEMENT DEED NO.7645/1995 OF SRO, ALANGAD DATED 20.11.1995.
P2TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 11.5.2015. P3TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 4.12.1955. P4TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 31.3.1972. P5TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 13.3.1984. P6TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 8.5.2015. P7TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LAND IDENTIFICATION DETAILS ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALANGAD.
P8PHOTOGRAPHS THREE IN NUMBERS SHOWING THE OLD BUILDING SITUATED IN THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY WITH OLD TREES. P9TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION DATED 16.3.2015.
P10TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.3.2015 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
NIL --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE pk
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
-------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2015
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P10, by which the petitioner's application for building permit was rejected, is under challenge in this writ petition.
2.
The petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 50 cents of property comprised in Sy.Nos.320/10B and 320/8 of Alangad Village in Paravur Taluk within the local limits of the respondent panchayath as per Ext.P1. He submitted an application for building permit, which was rejected by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P10 for the reason that in the basic tax register, the property is mentioned as 'paddy land'. According to the petitioner, there are old building and trees situated in the said property, and his father, who was residing therein, has been paying property tax. For substantiating the said contention, he produced Ext.P3 property tax receipt for the year 1955. He alleges that the Village Officer has certified that this is a dry land
..2..
and not included as paddy land anywhere. According to him, without considering any of these matters, the 2nd respondent rejected his application for building permit. Hence, he has approached this Court.
3.
Arguments have been heard.
4.
The decision of this Court in Mohammed Abdul Basheer C.P. V State of Kerala and another (2012 (3) KLT 86) lays down the principle that the present position of the land has to be taken into consideration and on ascertaining these facts, permission can be granted for construction.
5.
It is settled position that the applicant can choose the best land suited for construction of his house (Sunil v Killimangalam-Panjal 5th Ward Nellulpadaka Samooham [2012 (4) KLT 511]). Only if there is cultivation presently, then it will be considered as cultivating paddy land so as to attract the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules.
6.
In Jalaja Dileep v Revenue Divisional Officer
..3..
(2012(3) KLT 333), this Court observed that the description in the title deed or in revenue records will not be crucial if the property is reclaimed already. The aforesaid legal positions settled by this Court escaped the attention of the authorities while rejecting the petitioner's application. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P10 is quashed.
The respondent panchayath is directed to conduct a local inspection of the property regarding the present lie as well as the condition of the property of the petitioner and surrounding properties. The respondents are also directed to consider the application and pass positive orders granting building permit after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard if the respondents are satisfied that the land in its present form is not suitable for paddy cultivation. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE bka/-