MOHAMMED ABDUL BASHEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application for building permit submitted by the petitioner was rejected through Ext.P4 on the ground that the description of the property in the possession certificate is shown as wet land. The petitioner had produced Ext.P2 series photographs which will indicate that there is a hollow brick manufacturing unit functioning in the property in an open shed and the property contains coconut trees and other grown up trees having the age of approximately 15 to 20 years. Ext.P3 licence issued by the Panchayat indicates that the hollow brick manufacturing unit was permitted to function in the property. According to the petitioner, the property in question remains converted long back prior to enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 and hence the rejection merely on the basis of the description contained in the possession certificate or revenue records, cannot be sustained. Heard; counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent. In view of the settled legal position and the relief proposed to be granted, I am not issuing notice to the 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat.

(2.) The legal position remains settled through various decisions of this court, including Shahanaz Shukoor v. Chelannoor Grama Panchayat,2009 3 KerLT 899, Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner, 2010 2 KerLT 617 and Jafarkhan v. K.A. Kochumakkar & Ors., 2012 1 KerLT 491.

(3.) It is settled law that if the land in question was converted prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, the property in question cannot be described as 'paddy field' or 'wet land' coming within the purview of the said Act. It is held by this court that the question regarding grant of building permit need be decided taking into consideration of the ground reality existing. Hence I am of the view that rejection under Ext.P3 order cannot be sustained.