Partly allowed

C.Pradeep v. the Kodumbu Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC12 Nov 2018WP(C)/8460/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought directions regarding construction permissions on land wrongly categorized as paddy fields. The court examined applicable laws and issued directives for processing the building occupancy and numbering applications by the concerned revenue authorities and Panchayat.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the additional District Collector to transmit Ext.P9 to the Revenue Divisional Officer for final disposal within three months. Direction to the Panchayat Secretary to consider the numberi

C.Pradeep Vs the Kodumbu Grama Panchayat — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 8460 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

C.PRADEEP

¶8

S/O.DEVIDAS, AGED 51 YEARS, PRADEEP VIHAR, PARAKOT LANE, THIRUVAMBADY P.O., THRISSUE-680 022REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER N.RENJINI NAIR,W/O.C.PRADEEP, AGED 44 YEARS, SREEVALSAM, KARINGARAPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD-678 551

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE KODUMBU GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KODUMBU P.O.,PALAKKAD678 551

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY, KODUMBU GRAM PANCHAYAT KODUMBU P.O., PALAKKAD-678 551

¶13

3 ADDL.R3

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001. (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27/10/2018 IN IA.NO.7186/2018)

¶15

4 ADDL.R4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD. (ADDL.R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/11/2018)

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.SUSEEL M.MENON

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 8460 of 2018

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 0.0199 hectors of dry land situated in Re.Survey No.72/6 of Kodumbu Village in Palakkad Taluk. Petitioner secured a building permit from the Secretary of the Panchayat and has carried out the construction. However, when the petitioner submitted the completion plan and sought for numbering of the building, it was not done on the ground that property is situated as paddy field in accordance with the village records and the BTR. Thereupon, petitioner has now submitted Ext.P9 application before the additional 3^rd respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the situation would suffice if a direction is issued to the additional 3^rd respondent and thereafter a direction to the secretary of the Panchayat to consider the applications submitted by the petitioner for issuance for occupancy and numbering of the building.

¶22

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶23

WP(C).No. 8460 of 2018

¶24

¶25

Apparently, Ext.P9 application is submitted by the petitioner, before the additional 3^rd respondent, i.e.District Collector invoking the provisions of Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'KLU Order, 1967' for short). According to the learned Counsel, under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Oder, 1967, the District Collector as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer have got concurrent powers to consider such applications. However, It is pointed out that Section 27A of Act 2008 is brought into the statute, i.e. the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 as per the amendment made, in the year 2018, on and with effect from 30.12.2017. Then learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the division bench judgment of this Court in writ appeal No.2147/2018, whereby the judgment of the learned Single Judge was modified to the extent that the application under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order need be considered by the authority in accordance with the provisions of the KLU Order, 1967. However, on verification of facts it is evident that such a direction was issued on the basis of the application submitted by the applicant therein, prior to the introduction of Amendment Act, i.e.30.12.2017. Therefore, in my

¶26

WP(C).No. 8460 of 2018

¶27

¶28

considered view, the said judgment was rendered by the division bench of this Court under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. However, it is clear from Section 27A of Act 2008, that if the land is unnotified, the application will have to be considered under Section 27A of Act 2008 r/w Section 6 (2) of the KLU Order 1967, since the provision remains in force, without being disturbed by any order of the Court.

¶29

In that view of the matter, there will be a direction 3^rd respondent to transmit the application, i.e.Ext.P9 to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, at the earliest possible time and if and when the application is received by the Revenue Divisional Officer, it shall be considered in accordance with law and attain finality at the earliest possible time, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of the application from the District Collector. Needless to say, if the petitioner is producing necessary enabling orders before the Secretary of the Panchayat as directed above, the completion plan and application for numbering of the building shall be considered at the earliest possible time in accordance with law. So also, I have no reason to think that the Secretary of the Panchayat will not take into account the interim

¶30

WP(C).No. 8460 of 2018

¶31

¶32

order passed by this Court on 28.3.2018, to provisionally number the building, which will be guided by the directions contained above.

Sd/

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Jm/

WP(C).No. 8460 of 2018

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3837/2014 OF S.R.O.PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 07-03-2018 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATED BANK IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTY EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 1305-2016 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED 10-10-2017 OF THE KERALA GRAMIN BANK. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23-022018 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶42

EXT.P8: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23/02/2018 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE PETITION UNDER CLAUSE 6(2) OF THE KLU ORDER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD ON 8/3/2018.

C.Pradeep v. the Kodumbu Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Pradeep v. the Kodumbu Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varghese P.G. Vs Kowsigan a.

Vallamattom Stone Aggregates Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

M/S. United Metal Vs State of Kerala

V. Hassan Haji Vs the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation

T.Janardhanan Vs State of Kerala

Akshay Vs Kadukutty Grama Panchayat