Disposed

Abdul Lathief, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Nov 2017WP(C)/34365/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the Panchayat's inaction on a building permit application. The petitioner's property is classified as paddy land but was removed from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The Court directed the petitioner to apply for permission from the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 19

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to move the fourth respondent for permission to use the property for construction within one month; directed that if such permission is granted, the Panchayat shall grant the buildi

Abdul Lathief, Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/15TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

W.P(C).No. 34365 of 2017 (U)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER :

¶8

ABDUL LATHIEF, S/O. LATE MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, PATTAMMAL HOUSE, P.O. PALATH, KAKKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673611.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI SMT.T.RASINI

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, CHELANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNANKARA P.O., KKOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673616.

¶13

3. THE CHELANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNANAKARA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673616.

¶15

4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

¶16

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-673001.

¶17

5. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, CHELANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNANKARA P.O., KOZHIKODE -673616.

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER : SRI.K.J.MANURAJ

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P(C).No. 34365 of 2017 (U)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

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

¶24

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) 5533/2015 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND CASH RECEIPT.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶26

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

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

bpr

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶31

-------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.34365 of 2017

¶32

--------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2017

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the third respondent Panchayat in passing orders on the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of building permit. It is stated that orders are not being passed on the said application as the property is described in the revenue records as 'paddy field'. The case of the petitioner is that though the property is one which was included originally in the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'), the same was subsequently removed from the Data Bank. According to the petitioner, there is, therefore, no

¶35

W.P.(c).No.34365 of 2017 : 2 :

¶36

impediment at all for the Panchayat in granting the building permit sought by him. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the property is one included as 'paddy land' in the revenue records. It is also conceded by the learned counsel that the petitioner has not so far obtained permission of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for making use of his property for other purposes.

¶39

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of granting permission to the petitioner to move the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order viz, the fourth respondent for permission to use the property for construction of building. If the petitioner prefers an application for the said purpose before the fourth respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a

¶40

W.P.(c).No.34365 of 2017 : 3 :

¶41

copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the fourth respondent, in the light of the decisions of this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015(3) KLT 182) as also Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2017(3) KLT 822). Needless to say that if the permission sought by the petitioner under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is granted, the Panchayat shall grant the building permit applied for by the petitioner, if the application is otherwise in order.

¶42

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶43

rsr

Abdul Lathief, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Lathief, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Valsamma Charles Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

S.J.Basic Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs the District Collector

John Mathew Vs the Village Officer, Mylapra

K.a.Sebastian Vs the District Collector

Soman Karunakaran Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Pramod Das Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram