High Court quashed the Panchayath's refusal of land conversion approval, directed a fresh hearing with specific reasons, and granted a provisional ownership certificate to the petitioner.
Ext.P8 quashed; First respondent directed to afford hearing and decide de novo within one month; Provisional ownership certificate to be considered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931
WP(C).No. 15511 of 2009(H)
PETITIONER(S):
KUNJUKUNJAMMA JACOB,W/O.K.A.CHACKO, K.A.C.RUBBERS,KONTHIAPARMBIL, RAMANAKARY P.O.,ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN
RESPONDENT(S):
ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R5
ADV. SRI MATHEW VADAKKEL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
----------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.15511 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleaders for respondent 2 to 4 and the learned standing counsel for the 5th respondent. Notice to the first respondent is dispensed with preserving the right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved.
W.P.(C) No.15511 OF 2009 2
approached the first respondent Panchayath for approval. That has been refused as per Ext.P8, on the sole ground that the second respondent , Village Officer has reported that the land is one which was a paddy field and was converted. Such conversion does not by itself become illegal. The competent committee had granted permission as per ExtP6 decisions. Therefore unless there is a superior decision vacating the contents of the 5th paragraph of Ext.P6, that has to be followed. Therefore the impugned Ext.P8 issued solely on the basis of the report of the Village Officer that the land is a converted paddy field does not stand on the face of Ext.P6. The situation could not have improved even if the matter would fall under the legislation now governing the field of conversion of paddy field and wet lands.
For the aforesaid reasons I am satisfied that Ext.P8 is liable to be set aside enabling the first respondent to hear the petitioner again and issue a fresh decision stating more specific reasons if the ground stated in Ext.P8 is still insisted upon. Because, if the decision is against the petitioner, she will had a right to statutory appeal before the competent authority.
W.P.(C) No.15511 OF 2009 3
In the result Ext.P8 is quashed and the first respondent is directed to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and decide on the issue d e-novo within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and a copy of this writ petition.
Since the petitioner has applied for an ownership certificate, the first respondent will consider issuing such a certificate provisionally, pending final decision in the matter directed above.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge
jma/12.6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the refusal of approval for land conversion based solely on the Village Officer's report that the land was a converted paddy field is liable to be set aside.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a hearing and a fresh decision on the land conversion issue.
Whether the petitioner can be granted a provisional ownership certificate pending the final decision.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kunjukunjamma Jacob
Ramankary Grama Panchayath
The Village Officer, Ramankary
The Thasildar, Kuttanad Taluk
The District Collector, Alappuzha
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Punja Section, KSEB
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
