Remanded

P.K.Nafeesa v. Payyoli Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC15 Nov 2017WP(C)/2254/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging rejection of building permit applications were disposed of. The Court directed petitioners to apply for permission under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. District Collectors were ordered to verify if properties are exempt from the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 based on pre-Act conversion status and reports from monitoring committee

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to prefer applications before District Collectors for permission to construct buildings under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order; direction given to Collectors to veri

P.K.Nafeesa Vs Payyoli Grama Panchayath — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/24TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 2254 of 2015 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

P.K.NAFEESA, AGED 51 YEARS,

¶8

D/O.MOIDEEN HAJI, MARIYAM MANZIL, PAYYOLI, (PO), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. PAYYOLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PAYYOLI (P.O), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 522, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY,

¶13

PAYYOLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PAYYOLI (P.O), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 522.

¶14

3. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 522.

¶15

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶16

*** ADDITIONAL R5 IMPLEADED**

¶17

5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE.

¶18

ADDITIONAL R5 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15.11.2017.

¶19

R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.C.VATHSALAN

¶20

SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V

¶21

R3 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-11-2017, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO. 19667 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Msd.

¶24

WP(C).No. 2254 of 2015 (F)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶27

EXT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 27.06.2007. EXT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 03.08.2007. EXT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH. EXT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH. EXT P5: PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(C).No.2254 of 2015

¶36

¶37

19667, 23093, 24023, 35554 of 2016 &

¶38

4656, 7560, 11671, 13118, 13279, 13437 & 16906 of 2017.

¶39

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

¶40

Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2017

¶41

J U D G M E N T

¶42

Applications preferred by the petitioners for grant

¶43

of building permits have been rejected by the local authorities mainly on the ground that the properties where the petitioners proposed to put up the buildings are paddy lands as per the Revenue Records.

¶44

The common case of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is that their properties have been converted long prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). In most of the writ petitions, it is alleged by the petitioners that their properties are not included in the Data

¶45

¶46

WP.(C).No.2254/2015 & conn.cases.

¶47

Banks prepared under the Act and in the remaining writ petitions, it is alleged by the petitioners that their properties are shown as converted prior to the coming into force of the Act in the Data Banks prepared under the Act. According to the petitioners, in the circumstances, there is absolutely no impediment, whatsoever, in putting up buildings in the properties. They, therefore, seek appropriate directions in this regard, in these writ petitions.

¶48

If the properties of the petitioners are converted prior to the Act, the provisions of the Act would not apply to the same, as held by the Apex Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep (2015(1) KLT 984). If the provisions of the Act would not apply to the properties of the petitioners, they are entitled to make use of the same for other purposes, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order [See Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015(3) KLT 182)]. In Puthan

¶49

WP.(C).No.2254/2015 & conn.cases.

¶50

¶51

Purakkal Joseph (supra) and Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2017(3) KLT 822), this Court has dealt with the scope of the power of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order in dealing with the applications for permission preferred for use of the properties for other purposes.

¶52

In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners to prefer applications before the District Collectors concerned for permission to make use of the properties for construction of buildings invoking Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. If the petitioners prefer applications before the District Collectors concerned for permission to make use of the properties for construction of buildings as directed above, the same shall be considered by the District Collectors in the light of the decisions of this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph (supra) and Shivadasan ( supra ), after satisfying, by calling for reports from the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned under the

¶53

¶54

WP.(C).No.2254/2015 & conn.cases.

¶55

Act, that the properties of the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions are not liable to be included in the Data Banks prepared under the Act. The reports shall be called for by the District Collectors concerned within a week from the date of receipt of the application along with a copy of the judgment from the petitioners, and the direction aforesaid shall be complied with, within one month from the date of receipt of the reports. If the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, the petitioners shall be issued building permits, if they are otherwise entitled for the same, by the local authorities concerned.

¶56

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶57

Kvs/-

¶58

// true copy //

P.K.Nafeesa v. Payyoli Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Nafeesa v. Payyoli Grama Panchayath

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

M/S Time Ads and Publicity, Represented by Its Managing Partner P.a.Sebastian Vs Thrissur Municipal Corporation, Represented by Its Secretary

K.Narayanan Vs P.Venugopalan

Sathyadevan.K Vs a Shainamol.I.a.S

Shahina Vs the Malappuram Municipality

Vamadean Bhanu Vs Tahasildar

Kalpana Davis Vs State of Kerala