Badharudeen vs Kandanassery Grama Panchayath and Others

A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J—Ext. P3 order, by which the petitioner''s application for building permit was rejected, is under challenge in this writ petition.

The petitioner is in joint ownership of 20 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 570/1 of Kandanassery Village within the limits of the respondent panchayat in Talappilly Taluk, Thrissur District. The 2nd respondent rejected the application for building submitted by the petitioner as per Ext. P3, stating that the property is described as ''Nilam'' as per revenue records; and hence, permission cannot be granted. According to the petitioner, the property is a pucca garden land with full of coconut trees. He produced Ext. P4 photographs, showing the nature of land and Ext. P5 certificate, certifying the nature of the property. Therefore, according to the petitioner, Ext. P3 is per se illegal and hence, liable to be quashed.

Arguments have been heard.

The decision of this Court in Mohammed Abdul Basheer Vs. State of Kerala, (2012) 3 KLJ 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.

It is settled position that the applicant can choose the best land suited for construction of his house Sunil Vs. Killimangalam-Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham, (2012) 4 KLJ 724 : (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.

In Jalaja Dileep Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and others, (2012) 3 ILR (Ker) 601 : (2012) 3 KLJ 342 : (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. P3 is quashed.

The respondent panchayat 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 orders granting building permit after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard without insisting for clearance from any other authority if the respondents find that the property in question is unfit for paddy cultivation at present. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.