Partly allowed

St.George Knanaya Catholic Church v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Sept 2016WP(C)/20070/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside the District Collector's order rejecting an appeal on limitation grounds, directing reconsideration of the appeal on merits after impleading the Panchayat before the Government due to previous conversion permissions and law and order issues.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P12 order set aside; direction to Government to reconsider the appeal after impleading the Panchayat and hearing all objectors.

St.George Knanaya Catholic Church Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/29TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20070 of 2010 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ST. GEORGE KNANAYA CATHOLIC CHURCH, VECHOOR. P.O, VAIKOM, EDAZHAM, PIN-686 145, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR FR. JOSEPH KEEZHANGATTU.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS, SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN, SRI.TERRY V.JAMES.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.VINITHA HARIRAJ.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

WP(C).No. 20070 of 2010 (G)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶18

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 17/11/1995 PASSED BY THE VECHOOR PANCHAYATH.

¶19

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/05/2001 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶20

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 09/07/2001 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD FOR RECEIPT OF THE APPEAL SIGNED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/01/2005.

¶23

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02/07/2008 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C).NO.19885/2008.

¶24

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/09/2008 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXT.P8 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H1.46708/08 DATED 04/11/2009 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 16/11/2009.

¶26

EXT.P9 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 08/12/2009 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P10 COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 07/12/2009.

¶28

EXT.P11 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/02/2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P11A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/05/2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P12 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.75522/DB3/09/LSGP DATED 24/05/2010.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶36

---------------------------------W.P(C). No.20070 of 2010-G

¶37

---------------------------------Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2016

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The petitioner is aggrieved with the order

¶40

passed at Ext.P12, which declined the consideration of an appeal on the ground that the same is filed outside the time limit prescribed as per Rule 6(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj [Burial and Burning Grounds] Rules, 1998 [for brevity, the Rules of 1998].

¶41

The petitioner is said to have applied

¶42

for permission to the Panchayat for constructing a concrete vault in the property belonging to the petitioner in Survey No.217/7A

¶43

W.P.(C) No.20070 of 2010-G

¶44

¶45

of Vechoor Village for the purpose of conducting cremation of its parish members. The Panchayat is said to have sanctioned the same as per Ext.P1. However, the Rules of 1998 prescribed a sanction to be obtained from the District Collector. The District Collector considered the issue in Ext.P2 and found that the property is a wet land and cannot be utilised for the purpose for which it is now sought for, ie. for establishing a cremation vault. An appeal is said to have been filed as per Ext.P3, which was directed to be considered as per Ext.P6. On consideration of the appeal, Ext.P7 order was passed remanding the issue to the District Collector. The District Collector again passed Ext.P8 order, reiterating the reasons stated by the predecessor in Ext.P3 and

¶46

W.P.(C) No.20070 of 2010-G

¶47

¶48

found that there is a law and order problem in the area, based on which the rejection was made.

¶49

The petitioner filed appeal at Ext.P9, which is seen rejected at Ext.P12. The petitioner contends that the rejection could not have been made as per Ext.P12, since there was no delay occasioned. Admittedly, the time provided for filing an appeal is 30 days. The order challenged is Ext.P8 is dated 04/11/2009, the same has been issued by covering letter dated 16/11/2009 and the petitioner submits that they received it only on 18/11/2009. The appeal is said to have been filed on 08/12/2009. In such circumstance, there cannot be said to be any delay, since the limitation has to be calculated from the date on which the

¶50

W.P.(C) No.20070 of 2010-G

¶51

¶52

order is received. Ext.P12 in that view of the

¶53

matter is set aside and there shall be a direction to reconsider the appeal on merits.

¶54

In this context, it has to be noticed that the claim raised by the petitioner is now confirmed as per Ext.P5. Ext.P5 specifically indicates that the conversion sought for under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 was permitted only for the purpose of establishing a Sunday School and widening the front-yard of the Church. There is no mention of a Cemetery being established. Ext.P5 order was obtained with respect to the very same 42 cents of property in Survey No.217/7, which is the property sought to be converted as a Cemetery, as seen from Ext.P2 order. Hence, especially due to the passage of time, the Panchayat has

¶55

W.P.(C) No.20070 of 2010-G

¶56

¶57

to be necessarily heard before an order is passed in the appeal. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment before the Government and shall seek impleadment of the Panchayat in the appeal and the Government shall consider the issue after hearing the said parties and any other person, who objects to the same, especially since there is seen from the records a law and order situation in the area.

¶58

The writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶61

//True Copy//

¶62

P.A. to Judge.

¶63

sp/22/09/16

St.George Knanaya Catholic Church v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St.George Knanaya Catholic Church v. 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

Smt. Gigi James Vs K.M.Sabu Mathew

C.K.Benseer, Vs the Kottayam Municipality

Sasidharan Pillai Vs the Addl.District Magistrate

Mary George Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Ravi Vs Santhi

K. Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Kerala