Allowed

Sabitha Khureishi v. Punalur Municipality

Kerala HC19 Sept 2017WP(C)/4266/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 does not apply to property converted before the Act. Consequently, the petitioner is permitted to seek land utilization under the Land Utilization Order, 1967, and the second respondent is directed to process her application accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner petition is allowed; Second respondent directed to pass orders on Ext.P4 application within one month and issue necessary certificate from Local Level Monitoring Committee.

Sabitha Khureishi Vs Punalur Municipality — 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

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/28TH BHADRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 4266 of 2017 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

SABITHA KHUREISHI, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O. KHUREISHI, MASTER MANSION, PPM ROAD, PUNALUR, PIN-691 305

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNALUR, PIN-691 305

¶11

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RDO, 1ST FLOOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, PIN-691 013

¶12

*ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED

¶13

*ADDL.R3: LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PLACHERI.P.O., KALAYANADU, PUNALUR-691 331.

¶14

*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17/2/2017 IN IA.NO.2460/2017.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY, SC R2 & ADDL.R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

WP(C).No. 4266 of 2017 (G)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LAND WHICH THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS WRIT PETITION

¶22

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT, DATED 21.11.2016

¶23

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED NIL

¶24

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 01.02.2017

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(C).No.4266 of 2017

¶33

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

¶34

Dated this the 19 th day of September, 2017

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Petitioner owns an item of property. It is stated that the said property was originally a paddy land and the same was converted as a dry/garden land several years prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that since the property is described as 'Nilam” in the revenue records, in the light of the provisions contained in the Act, she is unable to obtain building permit from the local authority concerned for construction. It is alleged by the

¶37

W.P.(c).No.4266 of 2017

¶38

: 2 :

¶39

petitioner that in the data bank prepared in terms of the Act, it is clearly mentioned that the property is one converted prior to the commencement of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.P4 application invoking Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order, 1967 (Kerala), before the second respondent, seeking permission to use the land for other purposes. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the second respondent in granting the request made by the petitioner in the said application.

¶40

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

¶41

3. If the property of the petitioner is one 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 do not apply to the property of the petitioner, she is entitled to make use of the property for other purposes, after obtaining permission of

¶42

W.P.(c).No.4266 of 2017

¶43

: 3 :

¶44

the competent authority under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order, 1967 (Kerala) [See Puthan Purakkal

¶45

Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015(3) KLT 182)].

¶46

4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to pass orders on Ext.P4 application, in the light of the decision of this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph (supra) , within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The petitioner shall be issued a certificate by the Convener of the Local Level Monitoring Committee under the Act to the effect that the property is one converted prior to the Act in terms of the data bank prepared under the Act and the same shall also be produced by the petitioner before the second respondent along with the judgment. Since the restrictions imposed by the Government in terms of Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016 for exercise of power under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order, 1967 (Kerala), have been interfered with by this Court in Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional

¶47

W.P.(c).No.4266 of 2017

¶48

: 4 :

¶49

Officer (2017(3) KLT 822), the direction aforesaid shall be complied with, untrammelled by the directions in the Circular referred to above. Needless to say that if the request of the petitioner under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order has been granted, she will be entitled to building permit from the local authority concerned, if she is otherwise entitled to the same.

¶50

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶51

rsr

Sabitha Khureishi v. Punalur Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabitha Khureishi v. Punalur Municipality

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

Shaji M. Vs M.Ramanunni

Muhammed Shafeeque Vs Kumarampathoor Grama Panchayat

Abu.K.M Vs State of Kerala

Hamid Yaffi Vs Sindhu N.B

The Special Tahsildar (La) Vs Radhakrishnan

Cicy Joseph Vs District Collector