Disposed

Baiju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Nov 2018WP(C)/8540/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenged the rejection of a building permit for a paddy field property. The court disposed of the petition by directing the 4th respondent to finalize proceedings on the Section 27A application within four months and reconsider the permit if enabling orders are produced.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th respondent to pass an order on the Section 27A application within four months and reconsider the petitioner's building permit application.

Baiju Vs State of Kerala — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 8540 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BAIJU

¶8

AGED 46 YEARS, S/O RAMACHANDRAN, MUNDAPPATT HOUSE,CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR-680 020.

BY ADVS.

SRI.RAJIT

SMT.V.VIJITHA

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

2 THRISSUR CORPORATION CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR, PIN:680 001,REPRESENTD BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

3 THE SECRETARY

¶16

THRISSUR CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR, PIN:680 001.

¶17

4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶18

5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE

¶19

REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR, PIN:680 001.

¶20

6 DIRECTOR

¶21

KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE

¶22

WP(C).No. 8540 of 2018

¶23

¶24

UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695033.

¶25

BY ADVS. SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SC THRISSUR CORPORATION

¶26

SMT.RAJI.T.BHASKAR-GP R1,R4,R6

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

WP(C).No. 8540 of 2018

¶29

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Petitioner is the owner of an extent of 3.61

¶32

Ares of property situate in Sy.No.307/P of Chembukkavu Village, Thrissur District.

¶33

Petitioner has submitted an application for building permit before the 3^rd respondent i.e., the Secretary of the Thrissur Corporation, which was rejected as per Ext.P5 assigning various reasons, including the reason that, since the property is included in the BTR and Revenue records as 'paddy field', no permission can be granted. It is thus basically challenging Ext.P5, this writ petition is filed.

¶34

However, during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner has now submitted Ext.P8 application before the 4^th respondent, apparently, under clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, read with Sec.27A of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short Act, 2008) as amended by Act, 2018. Now the petitioner seeks direction for early

¶35

WP(C).No. 8540 of 2018

¶36

¶37

consideration of Ext.P8.

¶38

A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 2 and 3, justifying the stand adopted in Ext.P5. I am not going into the details, since

¶39

the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 4^th respondent to pass orders on Ext.P8, and thereafter, re-consider the building permit application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶40

petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3, there will be a direction to the 4^th respondent to finalise the proceedings pertaining to Ext.P8, at the earliest, and at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, taking into accounts the parameters and stipulations contained under Sec.27A of Act, 2008, as amended by Act, 2018. Needless to say, if the

¶41

petitioner is producing enabling orders in accordance with the directions contained above,

¶42

WP(C).No. 8540 of 2018

¶43

¶44

the building permit application submitted by the

¶45

petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law, and also taking into account the order so produced.

¶46

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

PR/09.11.2018

WP(C).No. 8540 of 2018

¶52

¶53

APPENDIX

¶54

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶55

EXHIBIT P1:	SALE DEED NO.3945/1/2012 OF SRO THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P2:	TAX RECEIPT DATED 5.9.2016 ISSUED FROM CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P3:	RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK PREPARED FOR THE CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P4:	POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5:	LETTER NO.DW4/BA/444/16-17 DATED 20.5.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6:	CIRCULAR NO.1858832/RAI/2017/LSGD DATED 6.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7:	LETTER DATED 26.12.2017 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 27A.

Baiju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baiju v. State of Kerala

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

K.I.Antony Vs State of Kerala

Sayuj Haridas Vs Thrissur Corporation

Elsy Kidangam James Vs State of Kerala

Varghese P.G. Vs Kowsigan a.

Vallamattom Stone Aggregates Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

M/S. United Metal Vs State of Kerala