Kerala High Court
Guruvayur Municipality vs Guruvayur Municipality on 10 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942
RP.No.67 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 33556/2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 33556/2019(T) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1 GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY
GURUVAYUR P.O THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 101
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2 MUNICIPAL ENGINEER,
GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY GURUVAYUR P.O, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN 680 101
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)
SMT.S.AMBILY
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE WRIT
PETITION:
1 K.A.PADMAKUMAR
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. K. NARAYANAN NAIR, AKSHAYA T.C 38/1542,
POOTHOLE, THRISSUR MANAGING DIRECTOR, THRISSUR
BUILDERS PVT LTD TBPL ARCADE, KOTTAPPURAM ROAD, NEAR
VYDHYUTH BHAVAN, THRISSUR 680 004
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISION OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
CIVIL LANE ROAD, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR 680 003
3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, GURUVAYUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 131
4 VILLAGE OFFICER,
GURUVAYUR VILLAGE P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 101
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No.67 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 33556/2019
2
R.P. No.67 of 2021
in
W.P.(C) No.33556 of 2019
-------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition are the petitioners in
this review petition.
2. The parties and documents are referred to in this order,
as they appear in the writ petition.
3. The petitioner holds a land measuring 3.957 Ares in
Guruvayoor Village. An application preferred by the petitioner for building
permit to put up a building in the said land has been rejected by the fourth
respondent Municipality on the ground that a portion of the land measuring
2.428 Ares is shown as a pond in the revenue records. The said decision of
the Municipality was under challenge in the writ petition. This court took the
view that in so far as the land of the petitioner is neither a paddy land nor a
wetland, there cannot be any impediment in granting the building permit
sought by the petitioner and consequently, disposed of the writ petition
directing the Municipality to grant the building permit sought by the
petitioner, if the application of the petitioner is otherwise in order.
4. Respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition, the Municipality
and the Municipal Engineer seek review of the judgment on the ground that
the portion of the land which is shown in the revenue records as pond would
amount to an 'unnotified land' in terms of the provisions of the Kerala
RP.No.67 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 33556/2019
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act) and a building
permit can, therefore, be granted in respect of such a land only if the
applicant obtains permission under Section 27A of the Act. According to
respondents 4 and 5, this aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by
this Court while disposing of the writ petition and hence this review.
5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for respondents 4 and 5
as also the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. No doubt, if the land of the petitioner satisfies the
definition of `unnotified land' in terms of the provisions of the Act,
permission under Section 27A of the Act is required for seeking a building
permit in respect of the said land. The short question therefore, is as to
whether the portion of the land of the petitioner which is shown in the
revenue records as 'pond' is liable to be treated as `unnotified land' in terms
of the provisions of the Act. The expression 'unnotified land' is defined in the
Act thus:
(xviiA) "unnotified land" means the lands within the area of
jurisdiction of the Committee which have been included as paddy
land or wetland in the basic tax register maintained in Village
Offices, but are not notified as paddy land or wetland under sub-
section (4) of Section 5 or where data bank has not been published
under the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (4) of Section 5,
the lands which have already been filled up on the date of
commencement of this Act and are not paddy land according to the
report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing Centre and the Local
Level Monitoring Committee or where the report of the Kerala State
Remote Sensing Centre is not available, lands which are not paddy
land according to the report of the Local Level Monitoring
Committee;"
RP.No.67 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 33556/2019
The case of respondents 4 and 5 is that since a portion of the land is shown
as a pond in the revenue records, that portion is to be treated as a wetland
under the Act and if that portion is treated as wetland, the same would
satisfy the definition of 'un-notified land' since the same is not included as
wetland in the data bank prepared under the Act. The scope of 'wetland'
under the Act has been explained by this court in Suraj v. State Of Kerala,
2018 (1) KLT 1. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment reads thus:
"11. The Act is one brought into force to conserve the Paddy land
and Wetland in the State in order to promote growth in the
agricultural sector and to sustain the ecological system. Section 2
(xviii) of the Act defines 'wetland' thus;
(xviii) "wetland" means land lying between terrestrial and aquatic
systems, where the water table is usually at or near the surface or
which is covered by shallow water or characterized by the presence
of sluggishly moving or standing water, saturating the soil with water
and includes backwaters, estuary, fens, lagoon, mangroves, marshes,
salt marsh and swamp forests but does not include paddy lands and
rivers;
As held by this Court in Asma v. District Collector (2015 (1) KLT
30), the wetlands brought under the purview of the Act are natural
lands lying between terrestrial and aquatic systems. If one
understands the scope of the definition in the context of the Act, It
is evident that the word 'systems' contained in the definition
refers to ecosystems. In other words, natural lands lying between
terrestrial ecosystems and aquatic ecosystems in the State alone
would fall within the ambit of the definition. If this was the
legislative intention, the land which was was originally a paddy
land, even if it is admitted so, would never fall within the definition
of 'wetland' under the Act. The case of the organisation referred to
above that the paddy land referred to by them in their report was
interspersed by wetlands also would not improve the case of the
petitioners in the light of the definition of 'wetland' contained in
RP.No.67 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 33556/2019
the Act. "(Underline supplied)
If one understands the definition of 'wetland' contained in the Act in the light
of the decision of this court in Suraj, it can be seen that a pond existing in a
garden land would not satisfy the definition of 'wetland' and such lands were
never intended to be brought in as wetland under the Act.
In the said view of the matter, the ground on which respondents
4 and 5 seek review of the judgement is unsustainable and the review
petition is therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
Mn JUDGE
