Allowed

Selvin I.E. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Nov 2018WP(C)/12960/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala quashed an administrative order rejecting a No Objection Certificate for urgent building repairs on unreasonable grounds, directing the Sub Collector to decide within 6 weeks while preserving the right to decide independently on patta irregularisation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Sub Collector directed to pass decision on NOC within 6 weeks after hearing.

Selvin I.E. Vs the State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 12960 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

SELVIN I.E. AGED 73, S/O.ISRAEL, RESIDING AT LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, MUNNAR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE SUB COLLECTOR DEVICULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685613.

¶12

3 THE ADDL. TAHASILDAR, DEVIKULAM PIN-685613.

¶13

BY SMT.A.C.VIDHYA, GOVT.PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P(C)No.12960 of 2018

¶16

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

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

¶19

W.P(C)No.12960 of 2018

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2018

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil)

¶24

are as follows:

¶25

(a) issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order calling for the records leading to Ext P4 and quash the same.

¶26

(b) issue such other writ or order directing the 2^nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext P5 in a time bound manner.

¶27

(c) Such other orders which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper."

¶28

2. Heard Sri.K.Babu Paul, learned counsel

¶29

appearing for the petitioner and Smt.A.C.Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶30

3. The petitioner seeks directions so as to direct the 2^nd respondent-Sub Collector, Devikulam

¶31

to grant NOC (No Objection Certificate), for carrying out the repairs and reconstruction of the buildings situated in 0.0162 Ares of property owned by him in Survey No.912/Part of Kannan Devan Hills

¶32

W.P(C)No.12960 of 2018

¶33

¶34

(KDH Village). The request for grant of NOC has now been rejected as per the impugned Ext.P-4 order dated 05.05.2017 issued by the 3^rd respondentAdditional Tahsildar on the ground that the request for NOC for carrying out urgent repairs and reconstruction of the building could be considered only after taking a final decision on the question of regularisation of the pattas issued to the petitioner. Ext.P-4 order dated 05.05.2017 reads as follows:

¶35

" സചന ശദ�കക അപ�ക വസവ�ന� ലഭ�ച�ര�കന എൽ . എ . 182/93/ ബ� 4 നമർ �ടയ� , തണപ ർ എന�വ സ"ധകര�ച�ട�ല എന� സചന (2) പക"ര� വ�പലജ� ഓഫ)സർ റ�പ "ർട� ചചയ�ടളത"ണ� . ആയവ �ര�പ1"ധ�ച� സ"ധകര�ചത�ന പ1ഷപ5 ത"ങളച8 അപ�കയ�ൽ ന8�8� സ9)കര�ക"ൻ ന�ർവ"ഹമള എന വ�വര� അറ�യ�കന ."

¶36

4. Now it is submitted by Smt.A.C.Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for the

¶37

respondents, on the basis of written instructions of the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar that the petitioner

¶38

had submitted an application before the 2^nd respondent-Sub Collector to get NOC for carrying out the construction work related to the aforesaid

¶39

W.P(C)No.12960 of 2018

¶40

¶41

building and application was forwarded to the KDH Village Office for enquiry and report through the office of the 3^rd respondent-Additional Tahsildar. That on 17.04.2017, the 3^rd respondent had reported that patta No.LA/182/93/B4 & TP No.194 (related to the landed property of the petitioner involved in this case), has not been regularised by the Sub Collector, Devikulam till then and that therefore, it is absolutely necessary to ascertain the genuineness of the revenue records such as patta, TP etc., while considering the application for NOC. The stand taken in Ext.P-4 is that the application

¶42

for NOC could be processed only after regularisation of patta & TP etc.

¶43

5. Having regard to the submissions on both sides, this Court is of the view that the stand taken by the respondents that the request made by the petitioner for grant of NOC for carrying out the emergent repair works and reconstruction of the building in question will have to await the long and arduous process of taking a final decision on

¶44

¶45

¶46

the issue of regularisation of the patta issued to the petitioner, is quite arbitrary and unreasonable to say the least. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was one of the beneficiaries of the ‘Laksham veedu Padhadhi’, which was meant for the members of the Scheduled Caste community and other weaker sections. Even if it is assumed that the issue regarding the grant of patta issued to the petitioner requires regularisation, the said long process that is required in that regard cannot be the ground to direct the petitioner to wait indefinitely for carrying out the emergent repairs and reconstruction of the building in question. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order at Ext.P-4 will stand set aside. The 2^nd respondent will take up the application made by the petitioner

¶47

for grant of NOC for carrying out repairs, etc. and take a decision afresh. While rendering a decision, the 2^nd respondent will take into consideration the new building norms that may be followed in the Munnar area and such relevant

¶48

¶49

¶50

aspects may be the basis for taking an appropriate decision on the request made by the petitioner for grant of NOC for carrying out the emergent repairs and reconstruction of the building. However, any such permission or NOC granted, will not in any

¶51

manner prejudice the respondents from taking a decision independently on the question of regularisation of the patta granted to the petitioner. Necessary steps in the matter of issuance of NOC in the case of the petitioner shall be duly completed by the 2^nd respondent, without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 weeks and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

¶52

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

vgd/12.11.18

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶60

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.12-12017 BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PAATA NO.LA 182/93/B4 DT. 23-11-93. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 30-12017 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE KDH, MUNNAR.

¶61

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.5-52017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶62

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18-05-2017.

Selvin I.E. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvin I.E. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.R. Sudhakaran Vs Union of India

Thomas Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

P.T. Kunhali Alias Kunhalikkutty Vs the Village Officer

Mrs. Rajeswari Devi Vs State of Kerala

B.Gopinath Vs State of Kerala

Yasodha Vs the Additional Tahsildar