Partly allowed

St.George Jacobite Syrian Chapel v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

Kerala HC10 Jul 2018WP(C)/4126/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court observed that Clause 6(a) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order does not inhibit utilisation of land for purposes other than paddy cultivation. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and directed the revenue officer to reconsider the application.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 27.5.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent; directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application and attain finality within three months.

St.George Jacobite Syrian Chapel Vs the District Collector… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4126 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

1 ST.GEORGE JACOBITE SYRIAN CHAPEL REP BY ITS VICAR FR. ELDHO VARGHESE THURAVOOR P.O, THURVOOR VILLAGE ANGAMALI PIN-683572.

¶8

2 K.V. KUNJU S/O VARKEY, KOORAN VEETTIL TRUSTEE, ST. GEORGE JACOBITE SYRIAN CHAPEL, THRURAVOOR P.O, THURVOOR VILLAGE ANGAMALI PIN-683572.

¶9

3 K.V.ELIAS S/O. VARKEY, KOORAN VEETTIL TRUSTEE, ST. GEORGE JACOBITE SYRIAN CHAPEL, THRURAVOOR P.O, THURVOOR VILLAGE ANGAMALI PIN-683572.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.SAJAN SRI.M.MOHAMED NAVAZ

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM COLLECTRATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD PIN-682030

¶13

2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORKOCHI PIN-682001

¶14

3. THE SECRETARY THURVAOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH THURVAOOR P.O ANKAMALI. PIN -683572

¶15

4. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REP BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER THURVAOOR GRAMA PANCHATH THURVAOOR P.O ANKAMALI. PIN-6835725. THE VILLAGE OFFICER THURVAOOR VILLAGE OFFICE THURVAOOR P.O ANKAMALI PIN-683572

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANURAJ K.J.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 4126 of 2018 (M)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1:-	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED 2ND RESPON	OF THE BY THE DENT	APPLICATION DATED 18.3.2017 PETITIONER CHAPEL BEFORE THE
EXHIBIT P2:-	TRUE COPY DATED 29.3	OF THE .2017	REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER
EXHIBIT P3:	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED RESPONDENT	OF THE BY THE .	APPLICATION DATED 19.4.2017 PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE COPY DBY THE PE	FO THE TITIOER	APPLICATION DATED 5.5.2017 FILE S BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE COPY BY THE PET REQUESTING RESPONDENT	OF THE ITIONER TO SUB	APPLICATION DATED 5.5.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT MIT A REPORT BEFORE THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE COPY 15.6.2017	OF THE OF THE	ORDER NO.A2-2554/17 DATED 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7:	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED RESPONDENT	OF THE BY THE	APPLICATION DATED 30.11.2017 PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶23

\ TRUE COPY \ PA TO JUDGE

¶24

jm/

¶25

SHAJI P.CHALY, J.

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(C) No.4126 of 2018

¶28

======================== Dated this the 10^th day of July 2018

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

According to the petitioner, petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 35 cents of land situate in Re Sy.No.346/8-3 and 346/8-5 of Block No.13 of Thuravoor Village purchased as per sale deed No.3202/2012 and sale deed No.2722/2013 of Angamali Sub Registry Office. According to the petitioner, a major extent of the property is not included in the data bank. However, a small portion is included in the data bank constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is also submitted that petitioner is intending to carry out construction only in an extent of 10 cents of property, which is not at all included in the data bank. Petitioner has thereupon submitted Ext.P1 application before the 2^nd respondent in accordance with the provisions

¶31

W.P.(C) No.4126 of 2018 2

¶32

of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order seeking utilisation of the land for a different purpose other than paddy cultivation. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the application was rejected by the 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P6 order dated 27.5.2017, stating that the property is included in the data bank and permission can be granted only for construction of a residential building. Thereupon, 3^rd respondent has declined building permit to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said orders passed by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents are illegal and unsustainable.

¶33

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also pressed into service the judgment of this Court in Shivadasan Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer [2017 (3)

¶34

KLT 822] . These are the background facts available before this Court to consider the reliefs sought for by the petitioner.

¶35

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶36

W.P.(C) No.4126 of 2018

¶37

¶38

By virtue of the proposition of law laid down by this Court in Shivadasan's Case (supra), I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P6(a) order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot be sustained, especially for the reason that, in the said judgment, it is held that, there is no inhibition created under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order for utilising the property in a different manner, other than paddy cultivation. Therefore, it could possibly take construction of any other building also, since no fetter is created under Clause 6(a) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order for use of the land for any different purpose, other than paddy cultivation. In that view of the matter, I quash Ext.P6(a); and direct the 2^nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law and also taking into account the proposition of law laid down in Shivadasan's case (supra), and all other enabling notifications issued by the State Government, including the one referred to in the judgment in Shivadasan's case (supra) and attain finality, at the earliest and at any rate within three months from the date

¶39

W.P.(C) No.4126 of 2018

¶40

¶41

of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner is also directed to produce a copy of this writ petition along with the appended documents before the 2^nd respondent. In the process of reconsideration as directed above, 2^nd respondent will be at liberty to verify from the Local Level Monitoring Committee, with respect to the veracity of the submission made by the petitioner in the writ petition that, petitioner intends to carry on construction in the property, not notified as per data bank.

¶42

This writ petition is disposed as above.

¶43

Sd/

¶44

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶45

jm/ \True copy \

¶46

PA to Judge

St.George Jacobite Syrian Chapel v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St.George Jacobite Syrian Chapel v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

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

Nazar M.A. Vs the Corporation of Kollam

Biju Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Balambika Alias Ambika M. Vs the District Collector

Hamsa.O.v. Vs the District Collector

Alex v John Vs the District Police Chief

I.P.Elias Vs the Piravom Municipality