Disposed

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

Kerala HC1 Nov 2017WP(C)/6475/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a batch of writ petitions, the petitioner company claimed properties were converted to garden lands before the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The court permitted applications for Data Bank correction via Local Level Monitoring Committees and authorized fresh permissions under the Kerala Land Utilization Order if conversion was pre-Act.

What did the court decide?

Permitted petitioners to file applications in prescribed form for Data Bank correction; directed authorities to consider applications under Kerala Land Utilization Order.

S.J.Basic Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs the District Collector — 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 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/10TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 6475 of 2017 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

S.J.BASIC HOMES PVT. LTD.

¶8

B-2105, JAWARHARLAL NEHRU INTERNATIONAL STADIUM, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ABDUL SALAM, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAHAMED HAJI, UTK HOUSE, KOTTAPPALLY VILLAGE, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM- 682 030.

¶12

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

¶13

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM- 683 564.

¶14

4. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, EDATHALA, ERNAKULAM- 683 564.

¶15

5. THE EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDATHALA NORTH P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM- 683 564.

¶16

6. THE SECRETARY, EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EDATHALA NORTH P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM- 683 564.

¶17

R1 & R4 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.V.ANANDAN R5 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN, S.C,

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2017, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO. 33506 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd.

¶20

WP(C).No. 6475 of 2017 (H)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPTS DATED 03/08/2016 ISSUED FROM THE ALUVA VILLAGE OFFICE.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE NATURE AND LIE OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK EXTRACTS IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A5-9928/2016 DATED 04/12/2016 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE YET ANOTHER COMMUNICATION NO.A5-9929/2016 DATED 04/12/2016 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14/02/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.994733/RA1/2016/LSGD DATED 22/12/2016.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(C).Nos.6475, 33506, 34858,

¶38

34890 & 34902 of 2017

¶39

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

¶40

Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2017

¶41

J U D G M E N T

¶42

The case of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions is that the properties owned by them as referred to in the writ petitions were originally paddy lands, but converted as garden lands several years prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). It is alleged by the petitioners that though the properties were converted as garden lands prior to the introduction of the Act, the properties are included in the Data Bank prepared under the Act and as such, they are unable to make use the

¶43

W.P.(c).No.6475/17 & con. cases : 2 :

¶44

properties for other purposes including construction of buildings. It is alleged in some of the writ petitions that the building permits applied for by the petitioners therein are not being considered for the aforesaid reason. In some other writ petitions, it is alleged that the buildings constructed by the petitioners therein are not being numbered on account of the said reason. According to the petitioners, since the properties were converted prior to the Act, the same should not have been shown in the Data Bank. In most of the cases, petitioners have preferred applications before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries relating to their properties in the Data Bank and the applications preferred by the petitioners for the said purpose are part of the records. The petitioners seek directions in these writ petitions to the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned to correct the entires in the Data Bank in relation to their properties. They also seek orders for correction of the entry relating to their properties in the revenue records. Some of the petitioners, among

¶45

W.P.(c).No.6475/17 & con. cases : 3 :

¶46

others, seek directions to the local authorities concerned to grant building permits applied for by them and some others seek directions to the local authorities concerned to assign numbers to the buildings constructed by them on the strength of the building permits issued to them.

¶47

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

¶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). But, the question whether the properties are converted prior to the Act as claimed by the petitioners is a matter to be considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committees at the first instance. It is all the more so since the Local Level Monitoring Committees are empowered to correct the mistake, if any, in the Data Bank. True, if the provisions of the Act would not apply to the properties of the petitioners, they are entitled to make use of the properties for other

¶49

W.P.(c).No.6475/17 & con. cases : 4 :

¶50

purposes including construction of buildings, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order [See Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015(3) KLT 182)].

¶51

The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the applications preferred by some of the petitioners for correction of the entries in the Data Bank as referred to in the writ petition are not in the prescribed form.

¶52

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners to prefer applications in the prescribed form, wherever such applications are not filed, before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries in the Data Bank in relation to their properties. It is also directed that if the petitioners prefer applications in the prescribed form as directed above along with copies of the judgment and the writ petition, the same shall be considered by the

¶53

Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned, after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and

¶54

W.P.(c).No.6475/17 & con. cases : 5 :

¶55

Environment Centre (KSRSEC) as to the position of the properties at the time of commencement of the Act. The petitioners shall pay the fees stipulated by the KSRSEC for issuing their report if directed so by the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees. Needless to say that in cases where reports have already been called for from the KSRSEC at the expense of the petitioners p ursuant to interim orders passed in the writ petitions, orders shall be passed on the strength of the said reports. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the requests made by the petitioners are allowed, they are entitled to prefer applications invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order before the competent authority viz, the District Collector/the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission to make use of the properties for other purposes, in cases where applications have not been filed by the petitioners for the said purpose and in that event, the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order shall pass orders on

¶56

W.P.(c).No.6475/17 & con. cases : 6 :

¶57

those applications within one month from the date of production of the decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee and the application under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, wherever applicable, along with a copy of the writ petition, in the light of the decision of this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph (supra), untrammelled by Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016 issued by the Government. If the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, the petitioners shall be issued building permits or assigned building numbers, as the case may be, if they are otherwise entitled for the same, by the local authorities concerned. Needless to say that if the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, they will also be entitled to move the authorities under the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of the lands as garden lands and if such requests are made by the petitioners, the same shall also be considered by the said authorities, in the light of Kizhakkambalam Grama

¶58

W.P.(c).No.6475/17 & con. cases

¶59

: 7 :

¶60

Panchayat v. Mariumma (2015(2) KLT 516), within one month from the date of receipt of their respective requests.

¶61

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶62

rsr

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balakrishnan Vs the District Geologist

Pradeep C.R. Vs State of Kerala

Liji. J Vs State of Kerala

John Mathew Vs the Village Officer, Mylapra

P.T.Johny Alex Vs State of Kerala

Binu K.K. Vs the Secretary, Corporation of Cochin