Kerala High Court
Subin M.D vs Parathode Grama Panchayat, ... on 20 January, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
WP(C) No.954 of 2025 1
2025:KER:4541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 30TH POUSHA, 1946
WP(C) NO.954 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SUBIN M.D., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. DINESAN, RESIDING AT
MOOZHIKUNNATH HOUSE, KORUTHODE VILLAGE, EDAKKUNNAM
KARA, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686513
BY ADVS.
LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
ATHUL V. VADAKKEDOM
REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 PARATHODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PARATHODE GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, PARATHODE P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN- 686513
2 THE SECRETARY, PARATHODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, OFFICE
OF THE PARATHODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PARATHODE P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686513
BY ADV.JUSTIN JACOB, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.954 of 2025 2
2025:KER:4541
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the owner of the property
covered by Ext.P1 Sale Deed. He has submitted an
application for building permit before the 2nd
respondent as evident from Ext.P5 acknowledgment
receipt. However, the 2nd respondent rejected the
application vide Ext.P6 stating that the property
of the petitioner was exempted as a plantation
under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 [for
brevity, 'the KLR Act'].
2. 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
2025:KER:4541
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."
3. Further, in Elias T.V and others v. Sub
Collector, Wayanad and others [2019 (2) KLT 391],
2025:KER:4541
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 decide and holder of
the land need to surrender only such portion
of the land so determined".
In the light of the above decisions, Ext.P6,
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
cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I set aside
Ext.P6 and direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider
2025:KER:4541
the application for building permit submitted by
the petitioner as evident from Ext.P5, bearing in
mind the observations made in the above decision
within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The
petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment
along with a copy of the writ petition before the
2nd respondent for further steps.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
sp/21/01/2025
2025:KER:4541
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 954/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 1430/2023
DATED 30.11.2023 OF THE SRO, KOOVAPPALLY
Exhibit P1(a) THE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
11.7.2024 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE
OFFICE, EDAKKUNNAM SHOWING THE PAYMENT
OF TAX FOR THE EXTENT OF PROPERTY OF
3.65 ARES IN RESURVEY NO. 84/6-8 OF
BLOCK NO.4 OF EDAKKUNNAM VILLAGE
Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 923/2021
DATED 13/08/2021 OF THE SRO, KOOVAPPALLY
Exhibit P3 THE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.
518/2009 DATED 17.2.2009 OF SRO,
KANJIRAPPALLY
Exhibit P4 THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1921/1981
DATED 5.5.1981 OF THE SRO KANJIRAPPALLY
Exhibit P5 THE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT
DATED 25.11.2024 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST
RESPONDENT-PARATHODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT
SHOWING SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR
BUILDING PERMIT
Exhibit P6 THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
400531/BPRL02/G P O/2024/7369(2) DATED
29.11.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P7 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/3/2024
IN WP(C) 5983/2024 BEFORE THIS
HONOURABLE COURT
2025:KER:4541
Exhibit P8 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.6.2024
IN WP(C) 10284/2024 BEFORE THIS
HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P9 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.7.2024
IN WP(C) 26874/2024 BEFORE THIS
HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P10 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.8.2019
IN W.P.(C) NO. 17709/2019 BEFORE THIS
HONOURABLE COURT
