Disposed

T.Thomas Abraham v. Village Officer

Kerala HC31 Oct 2014WP(C)/278/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to change revenue record entries and consider a building permit application. The court held that since the land was converted before the relevant Act, it is not paddy or wet land. The petitioner was directed to approach the District Collector for permission under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach District Collector, Ernakulam to utilize land for other purposes under clause (6) of KLUO, 1967.

T.Thomas Abraham Vs Village Officer — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/9TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 278 of 2014 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

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

¶8

T. THOMAS ABRAHAM, S/O.THOMAS, "SHARON" VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER ALWAYE WEST VILLAGE OFFICE, ALWAYE ERNAKULAM PIN-683 101.

¶13

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI ERNAKULAM PIN-682 001.

¶14

3. CHOORNIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALWAYE PIN-683 106 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K. SOYUZ R3 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 278 of 2014 (H)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAN SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DATED NIL.
EXT.P2:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 22-2-2013.
EXT.P3:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.17083/2013 DATED 25-7-2013
EXT.P4:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 6-12-2013.
EXT.P5:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 7-3-2013 TO THE PETITIONER
EXT.P6:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 6-3-2013 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P7:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26-2-2013 FILED BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY.
EXT.P9:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 13-3-2013

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(C).No.278 of 2014 H

¶29

============================ Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2014

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to change the entries in the Basic Tax Register and revenue records with respect to the property owned by the petitioner and to consider the application for building permit. Petitioner is the owner in possession of properties in Re-Survey Nos.147/14, 123/2, 123/3, 123/4, 123/5 and 123/5-2 in Choornikkara Panchayath, Alwaye West. Ext.P2 is the application to classify the land as dry land in Basic Tax Register. The petitioner submits that without prejudice to the claim for declaration to classify the above land as purayidam, he may be permitted to utilize the land for other purposes under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967.

¶32

The Collector has power under KLUO to grant permission to utilise such land for any other purposes. The Collector is defined under clause 2(a) of the KLUO which includes the Revenue Divisional Officer as well. Though the property is reclaimed before the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008, nevertheless, if the land in question was under cultivation

¶33

W.P(C).No.278 of 2014 H

¶34

¶35

with any food crop either three years prior to the commencement of the KLUO or after its commencement, permission from the Collector is necessary for utilising the above land for any other purposes. This Court in Praveen K. v. Land

¶36

Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others

¶37

[2010 (2) KHC 499] held as follows:

¶38

“If an application is made under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the same is not liable to be dismissed before an enquiry is held by the concerned authority under the Act and a finding is entered that the land in respect of which the application is made is a paddy land or a wetland. If the land is not found to be paddy land or wetland, application has to be considered as per the provisions of the KLU.”

¶39

In Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward,

¶40

Nellulpadaka Samooham [2012 (4) KLT 511] another Division Bench of this Court held that permission under clause 6 can be granted for construction of building for industrial purposes also. In Praveen's case (supra) also this Court laid down the manner in which an application under clause 6 of the KLUO has to be dealt with by the Collector.

¶41

W.P(C).No.278 of 2014 H

¶42

¶43

The Agricultural Officer has inspected the property pursuant to the direction of this Court and reported that the property has been converted before the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008.

¶44

In view of the above, the property cannot be treated as a paddy or wet land under the Act 28 of 2008. It is held in Joseph John Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2014(1) KLT 706) that even if the land was reclaimed before the Act 28 of 2008, it is not a bar to consider the application in terms of clause (6) of the KLUO. Therefore the petitioner shall approach the District Collector, Ernakulam with an application to utilize the land for other purposes in terms of clause (6) of the KLU order. The District Collector, Ernakulam shall consider such application within two months from the date of receipt of such application in the light of discussion as above after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶45

The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

¶48

Sbna/04/11/14

T.Thomas Abraham v. Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Thomas Abraham v. Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tony.K.P. Vs Kerala Water Authority

Community Development Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Alphy Joseph and 7 Others Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Amretha Motors Pvt.Ltd Vs National Small Industreis Corpn.

Zenana Mission Lower Primary School Vs District Collector,Thrissur

Parameswaran Nair Vs State of Kerala