Disposed

Sugathan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Dec 2014WP(C)/23272/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition alleging illegal reclamation of paddy land by the fourth respondent. The Court held that the Panchayath must hear the parties while considering the development permit application based on the draft data bank status. If not covered, the respondent must obtain permission from the Collector.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of, directing the Panchayath to hear the parties during permit application consideration.

Sugathan Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 23272 of 2013 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUGATHAN, AGED 64, S/O.THACHAMKULAM BALAKRISHNAN, CHENGALUR VILLAGE, P.O.CHENGALUR, THRISSUR - 680 312.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE PUDUKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PUDUKAD P.O., THRISSUR - 680 301.

¶12

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

¶13

COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 003.

¶14

4. M/S. HI-LINE INDIA KURIES (P) LTD, THORAVU VILLAGE,

¶15

PUDUKAD DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,

¶16

REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.A.BABU,

¶17

S/O.AKARAKARAN VEETIL ANTHONY, THURVANKAD DESOM,

¶18

PULLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK - 680 001.

¶19

R1 BY SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE) R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.R.REENA R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT R4 BY SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

mbr/

¶22

WP(C).No. 23272 of 2013 (H)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXHIBIT-P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED IN THE NAME OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE PETITIONER BEARING NO.3392/2005 DATED 12/7/05 OF THE NELLAYI S.R.O.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5/7/2013.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT ISSUED FOR SENDING EXT.P2 DATED 8/7/2013.

¶28

EXHIBIT-P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 5/7/2013.

¶29

EXHIBIT-P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT ISSUED FOR SENDING EXT.P4 DATED 8/7/2013.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXT. R4(A)(1): TRUE COPIES OF THE SALE DEED NO.325/2013 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, NELLAYI, DATED 18.1.2013 AND 19.1.2013.

¶32

EXT. R4(A)(2): TRUE COPIES OF THE SALE DEED NO.326/2013 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, NELLAYI, DATED 18.1.2013 AND 19.1.2013.

¶33

EXT. R4(A)(3): TRUE COPIES OF THE SALE DEED NO.327/2013 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, NELLAYI, DATED 18.1.2013 AND 19.1.2013.

¶34

EXT. R4(A)(4): TRUE COPIES OF THE SALE DEED NO.328/2013 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, NELLAYI, DATED 18.1.2013 AND 19.1.2013.

¶35

EXT. R4(A)(5): TRUE COPIES OF THE SALE DEED NO.329/2013 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, NELLAYI, DATED 18.1.2013 AND 19.1.2013.

¶36

EXT. R4(A)(6): TRUE COPIES OF THE SALE DEED NO.330/2013 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, NELLAYI, DATED 18.1.2013 AND 19.1.2013.

¶37

EXT. R4(A)(7): TRUE COPIES OF THE SALE DEED NO.333/2013 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, NELLAYI, DATED 18.1.2013 AND 19.1.2013.

¶38

EXT. R4(A)(8): TRUE COPIES OF THE SALE DEED NO.335/2013 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, NELLAYI, DATED 18.1.2013 AND 19.1.2013.

¶39

EXT. R4(A)(9): TRUE COPIES OF THE SALE DEED NO.336/2013 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, NELLAYI, DATED 18.1.2013 AND 19.1.2013.

¶40

--2--

¶41

--2--

¶42

WP(C).No. 23272 of 2013 (H)

¶43

EXT. R4(A)(10): TRUE COPIES OF THE SALE DEED NO.337/2013 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, NELLAYI, DATED 18.1.2013 AND 19.1.2013. EXT. R4(B): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.5.2012. EXT. R4(C): PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE TRUE NATURE OF THE PROPERTIES PURCHASED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT. R4(D) : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.8.2014. EXT. R4(E) : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.11.2014.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶48

*****************************************************

¶49

W.P.(C) No.23272 of 2013

¶50

***************************************************** Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2014

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

The petitioner approached this Court alleging illegal reclamation of the paddy land by the 4^th respondent. The petitioner submits that the 4^th respondent is attempting to reclaim the paddy land in violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short, the “Act 28 of 2008”). Ext.P2 is the complaint before the second respondent

¶53

and Ext.P4 is the complaint before the third respondent. The petitioner submits that the property in Survey Nos.932/1 and 931/2 is classified as 'Nilam' in the draft data bank and therefore, the 4^th respondent cannot undertake any construction.

¶54

The learned counsel appearing for the 4^th

¶55

respondent submits that the property is not classified as 'Nilam' or 'wet land' as on the date of the enactment of the Act

¶56

W.P.(C) No.23272 of 2013 2

¶57

28 of 2008. The property is recorded as converted land in the draft data bank. The 4^th respondent submits that they have already applied for development permit before the Panchayath.

¶58

In the facts and circumstances as above, the Panchayath

¶59

shall hear the petitioner and the fourth respondent while considering the application for development permit after adverting to the status of the property in the draft data bank as paddy or wetand. If the property is not covered under the draft data bank, the 4^th respondent is free to undertake any construction, provided the 4^th respondent shall obtain a permission from the Collector in terms of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The 4^th respondent, therefore, at liberty to approach the District Collector, Thrissur in terms of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order that this is a reclaimed land in the draft data bank.

¶60

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶61

Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶62

Sugathan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugathan v. the State of Kerala

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

Abdul Salam Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammadali.K Vs the Principal

St.Mary'S Catholic Church Vs State of Kerala

Anas K.A. Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

K.I.Ummer Khan Vs State of Kerala

P.a.Isaac Vs the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department