Kerala High Court
Julie Joseph vs Peerumedu Grama Panchayat Represented ... on 6 March, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO.8955 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JULIE JOSEPH, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.JOSEPH KURUVILA,
THEKKETHURUTHEL HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM, MANGANAM P.O
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686018
BY ADVS.
CHITHRA CHANDRASEKHARAN
RAJEEV V.K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 PEERUMEDU GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PEERUMEDU GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
PEERUMEDU P.O, IDUKKI, PIN - 685531
2 THE SECRETARY, PEERUMEDU GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
OFFICE OF THE PEERUMEDU GRAMA PANEHAYAT,
PEERUMEDU P.O. IDUKKI, PIN - 685531
BY SMT.JOICE GEORGE, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.8955 of 2024 2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the owner in possession of 4
Ares 13 Sq.Meters of land comprised in Survey
Nos.64/1-2-1 and 64/1-2-2 of Elappara Village,
Peerumedu Taluk, Idukki District. The petitioner
submitted an application for building permit for
construction of a residential building in the
aforesaid property. The same was rejected by the
2nd respondent, the Secretary of the 1st respondent
Panchayat vide Ext.P2, stating that as per the
Revenue Records, the property is 'plantation' and
therefore, building permit cannot be issued to the
petitioner. The petitioner submits that the
building permit cannot be refused for the reason
that the land was exempted as a plantation under
the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 [for brevity,
'the KLR Act']. It is trite that there can be no
restriction in constructing building on a land
that was exempted as a plantation under the KLR
Act. The Full Bench of this Court in Mathew
K.Jacob and Another v. District Environmental
Impact Assessment Authority [2018 (5) KHC 487 :
2018 (4) KLT 913 : ILR 2018 (4) Ker. 868 : 2019
(1) KLJ 49 : AIR 2019 Ker.67] held that there is
no prohibition in using an exempted land for a
different purpose under the KLR Act. In District
Collector v. Sajith Lal [2023 KLT OnLine 1225], a
Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
"5. There is no embargo under law in
using any exempted land for non-exempted
purposes as well. If the land is used for
non-exempted purposes, the holder of the
land will lose the qualification for
exemption, thus giving authority to the Land
Board to initiate ceiling proceedings. The
judgments cited at the Bar fortify the above
legal proposition. The KLR Act provides no
answer against conversion of the exempted
land. Had it not been for the exemption, the
land would have been included in the ceiling
proceedings of the declarant for surrender.
The only plausible conclusion in this
situation is that the Land Board will be in
a position to initiate ceiling proceedings."
2. Further, in Elias T.V and others v. Sub
Collector, Wayanad and others [2019 (2) KLT 391],
this Court held as under:-
"Therefore, without such determination, the
Government cannot claim any right over the
land. The land still belongs to the holder
of such land. There is no curtailment of
nature of use of land contemplated under
the various provisions of the KLR Act. The
holder of the land is free to use the land
as an absolute owner in accordance with
law. If the landholder has converted the
land by using it for other exempted or non-
exempted purposes in a re determination of
the ceiling, the extent of which conversion
will decided and holder of the land need to
surrender only such portion of the land so
determined".
In view of the above, Ext.P2, to the extent it
rejects petitioner's application for building
permit on the ground that the property is
classified as plantation in the Revenue Records,
is illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, I set aside
Ext.P2 and direct the respondents to reconsider
the application for building permit submitted by
the petitioner, bearing in mind the observations
made above. This shall be done within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
sp/06/03/2024
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
NO.28/24 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 11/1/2023 ISSUED BY THE
PEERMEDU GRAMA PANCHAYAT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
400579REPRL02/GENERAL/2024/637/(1) DATED
2O-2-2O24 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/02/2024
IN WP(C) NO.7798/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
