Allowed

K.K.Usha Nambiar v. the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Kasaragod

Kerala HC12 Jun 2014WP(C)/27341/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a prohibitory order issued against the petitioner to convert her garden land into building land. Relying on the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, the court held that the Land Utilization Order provisions no longer apply and granted relief to allow construction.

What did the court decide?

The prohibitory order Ext.P4 issued by the 1st respondent is quashed. It is declared that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction in respect of the property. The 1st respondent is directed not to inter

K.K.Usha Nambiar Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/22ND JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 27341 of 2012 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

K.K.USHA NAMBIAR 'USHAS', POOVALAMKAI PEROLE, P.O. PUTHARIYADUKKAN REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.VIJAYAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR NITTADUKKAM, BALLA, KLANHANGAD KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD - 671 315, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER HOSDURG VILLAGE, KANHANGAD - 671315

¶12

KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

...2/-

¶16

WP(C).No. 27341 of 2012 (P)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXT.P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 11-04-2007 BY WHICH THE
	PETITIONER HAS PURCHASED 20 CENTS OF PROPERTY.
EXT.P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 18-10-2010 GRANTED BY KANHANGAD MUNICIPALITY TO THE PETITIONER.

¶20

EXT.P3 A PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE BUILDING BEING CONSTRUCTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE NEARBY BUILDING.

¶21

EXT.P4 A COPY OF THE PROHIBITARY ORDER NO G7597/12(1) DATED 20-09-2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20-09-2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXT.P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 4-10-2012 .

¶24

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 9.10.2012.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 27341 of 2012

¶31

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2014

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Aggrieved by Ext.P4 prohibitory order, by which the petitioner was prohibited from converting the paddy land on the ground that it was in violation of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 and the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, the petitioner has come up before this Court. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the 1^st respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings as per Ext.P4 in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1.

¶34

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 20 cents of land as per Ext.P1 sale deed of 2007. According to him, it is a garden land having coconut trees aged more than 15 years as evident from Ext.P1 itself. In the year 2010, she obtained Ext.P2 building permit and consequently, she completed the construction of the

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 27341 of 2012

¶36

..2..

¶37

building. However, later, Ext.P4 prohibitory order has been issued by the 1^st respondent restraining the petitioner from converting the paddy land. The petitioner alleges that though she appeared before the 1^st respondent on 04.10.2012 for hearing, he has not finalized the proceedings. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶38

In the counter filed by the State, it is stated that there are several houses adjoining the plot and it was converted years back. It is also stated that in the land in question, there is no paddy cultivation and is filled with bushes. A two-storied building was under construction in the said plot and 90% of the construction was completed at the time of the inspection of the Village Officer; it was submitted.

¶39

This Court, by interim order dated 21.11.2012, permitted the petitioner to continue with the construction at his own risk. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she has completed the

¶40

..3..

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 27341 of 2012

¶42

construction and she is waiting for getting the building numbered by the local authority concerned.

¶43

Arguments have been heard.

¶44

Admittedly, the property was purchased as per

¶45

Ext.P1 by the petitioner in the year 2007. It can be seen from Ext.P1 itself that it is a garden land; and there are coconut trees in the said land. According to the petitioner, she got Ext.P2 building permit in the year 2010 and has started construction. These facts are not disputed. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is admitted that the properties surrounding the petitioner's property are garden lands and the construction of the petitioner's building was almost completed on the date of inspection of the Village Officer.

¶46

It is settled law that in the case of paddy land and wet land, the provisions of Land Utilization Order do not survive after the coming to force of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. A

¶47

..4..

¶48

W.P.(C) No. 27341 of 2012

¶49

Division Bench of this Court in Praveen K. v. Land

¶50

Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and

¶51

others [2010 (2) KHC 499 (DB)] observed that even the pending applications under the Land Utilization Order will have to be considered under the provisions of the new Act. As regards the application of the Paddy Land Act, 2008, the status of the land as on the date of coming into force of the said Act has to be taken into consideration. In the instant case, evidently, the property of the petitioner is a garden land on the commencement of the new Act. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason for the 1^st respondent to issue Ext.P4, prohibiting conversion.

¶52

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 is quashed.

¶53

It is hereby declared that the 1^st respondent has no jurisdiction to issue Ext.P4 in respect of the property governed by Ext.P1.

¶54

The 1^st respondent is directed not to interfere with

¶55

W.P.(C) No. 27341 of 2012

¶56

the construction of building of the petitioner, which is permitted by Ext.P2.

¶57

It shall be open to the petitioner to approach the local authority to get the building numbered on the strength of this judgment.

¶58

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶59

bka/-

K.K.Usha Nambiar v. the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Kasaragod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Usha Nambiar v. the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Kasaragod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs Ajayakumar

K.Sasidharan Vs Kseb

P.K.Abdul Latheef Vs Board of Control of the Orphanages

Abraham John Vs State of Kerala

Susy Kishore Vs Village Officer

K.a.Baraham Vs State of Kerala