Quashed

Tintumon & Another v. the State of Kerala & Others

Kerala HC3 Jun 2009WP(C)/9342/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed rejection orders for building permits issued before determining land conversion eligibility under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, directing the Local Level Monitoring Committee to decide pending applications within two months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Exts. P5 and P6; respondents 5 and 7 directed to decide Exts. P3 and P4 within two months; Exts. P3 and P4 applications for building permit to be taken up de novo.

Tintumon & Another Vs the State of Kerala & Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 9342 of 2009(K)

¶6

--------------------------------------PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-------------------------

¶8

1. TINTUMON S/O. JOY JOSEPH, MAVELI HOUSE, KOODALLUR EAST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. TIBET JOY S/O. JOY JOSEPH, MAVELI HOUSE, KOODALLUR EAST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REP. BY HIS FATHER JOY JOSEPH.

¶10

BY ADVS. MR.C.R.SIVAKUMAR, SMT.NIKHILA SOMAN.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

--------------------------1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALA,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶14

3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶16

5. THE CHAIRMAN/THE PANCHAYATH PRESIDENT OF KIDANGOOR PANCHAYATH, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KIDANGOOR PANCHAYATH, KIDANGOOR.

¶17

6. THE SECRETARY, KIDANGOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KIDANGOOR, PIN-686 572.

¶18

7. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER/ THE CONVENOR OF LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KIDANGOOR.

¶19

R1 TO R4& R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA R6 BY ADVS. MR.V.G.ARUN, MR.T.R.HARIKUMAR.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Kss

¶22

WPC.NO.9342/2009 K

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶25

P1: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 18/04/08.

¶26

P2: COPY OF THE LOCATIOJN PLAN ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 18/04/08.

¶27

P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DTD. 04/10/08.

¶28

P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DTD. 04/10/08.

¶29

P5: COPY OF THE REJECTION ODER DTD. 02/12/08 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶30

P6: COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DTD. 02/12/08 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶36

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶37

W.P.(C).No.9342 of 2009-K

¶38

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶39

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2009.

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

1.Service complete. Sixth respondent appears. Learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 to 4.

¶42

2.Petitioners made Exts.P3 and P4 applications dated 4.10.2008 for conversion of an item of land under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. They also filed applications dated 16.10.2008 for permit to construct building. By Exts.P5 and P6, the requests for building permits were rejected on the ground that the competent authority has decided that the petitioners are not entitled to an order for conversion of land under the aforesaid Act. There is nothing on record to show that any order was issued either on Ext.P3 or on Ext.P4 which are under the aforesaid Act and are not applications for building permit.

¶43

WP(C)9342/09

¶44

-: 2 :-

¶45

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Exts.P5 and P6 are quashed and respondents 5 and 7 are directed to ensure that the competent committee decides on Exts.P3 and P4 and issues its decision thereon in accordance with law at the earliest, at any rate, within two months. The applications of the petitioners for building permit will be taken up by the sixth respondent de novo after the committee renders such decision. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶46

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶47

Sha/050609

Tintumon & Another v. the State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tintumon & Another v. the State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.P.Sahik Hassan Vs Ksrtc

Bincy Vs the Cheranelloor Grama Panchayat

M.M.Chandran Nambiar & Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

M/S.Mooppan Motos (P) Ltd. Vs the Principal Secretary to Govt.

Assis Syed Muhammed Vs Dy.Director of Panchayats, Thodupuzha

Suneesh Vs State of Kerala