Disposed

Muhammed Asker v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Feb 2019WP(C)/21989/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent to finalise a review application within three months. Petitioners were directed to submit applications under the amended Rules, 2018 to Section 27A of the Act, 2008, for conversion of paddy land and building permissions. Break.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd respondent to finalise the Ext.P4 application within three months and the additional 4th respondent to consider the application under Rules, 2018 within three months.

Muhammed Asker Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 30TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 21989 of 2016

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 MUHAMMED ASKER AGED 43 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMEDALI, PERUMPALLY HOUSE, THURAKKAL, VATTAPPARA, NARUKKARA PO, MALAPPURAM, PIN 676122

¶8

2 HUSSAIN ALI S/O.MUHAMMEDALI, PERUMPALLY HOUSE, THURAKKAL, VATTAPPARA, NARUKKARA PO, MALAPPURAM, PIN 676122

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001

¶12

2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676121 3 MANJERI MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN 676121

¶13

4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA (SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS THE ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 19.2.2019)

¶14

SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL,GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3SRI.SHIBILI NAHA,SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 21989 of 2016

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Petitioners are owners of an extent of 38.63 Ares property situated in Re.Survey No.56/3, Block No.51 of Manjeri Village, Ernad Taluk, Malappuram District. The case projected by the petitioner is that, though the property is a garden land, it is included in the data bank constituted as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2008' for short), and remaining in the village records and BTR as paddy field. Even though petitioners have submitted an application seeking issuance of building permit, it was rejected by Ext.P3 order, assigning the reason that unless and until the petitioners secure necessary orders from the statutory authorities, permission can be granted. Thereupon, petitioners have submitted Ext.P4 application before the 2^nd respondent seeking removal of the property from the data bank and Ext.P5 application before the additional 4^th respondent, who is suo motu impleaded as the additional 4^th respondent, seeking regularisation and permission for utilisation of the property for other purposes other than paddy cultivation and agricultural operations and seek directions for early consideration of the applications..

¶20

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the

¶21

WP(C).No. 21989 of 2016

¶22

¶23

learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶24

Learned Government Pleader has pointed out that consequent to the introduction of Rules, 2018 to regulate the proceedings under Section 27A of Act, 2008 as amended by Act, 2018, petitioners may have to submit an application in the statutory format before the 1^st respondent.

¶25

I find force in the said contention since the application filed by the petitioner before the additional 4^th respondent is dated 30.11.2018, ie. after the appointed date, 30.12.2017, on which date the amended provisions of Act 2008 came into force and the petitioners have a case that the property was converted prior to the introduction of Act, 2008 and it is remaining in an irreversible condition as a paddy field. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2^nd respondent to finalise Ext.P4 application, at the earliest and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioners are producing enabling orders as directed above from the 2^nd respondent and submit any application before the additional 4^th respondent as per the format prescribed under Rules, 2018, it shall be considered in accordance with law, at the earliest and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of the application in the format, along with Ext.P5,

¶26

WP(C).No. 21989 of 2016

¶27

¶28

applying the parameters and stipulations contained under Section 27A of Act 2008, as amended by Act 2018. Needless to say, if the petitioners are producing orders as directed above, the building permit application submitted by the petitioners shall be reconsidered, in accordance law, also taking note of, orders if any produced. Petitioners are directed to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the appendant documents, before the statutory authorities for appropriate action.

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶30

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶31

Jm/

¶32

WP(C).No. 21989 of 2016

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶36

P1	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS FOR THE YEAR 2015-16
P2	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FAIR VALUE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2016 BEARING NUMBER E3-5221/16 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION FILED UNDER RULE 4(6) OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND RULES, 2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶37

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION UNDER CLAUSE 6(2) OF THE KERALA LAND UTILISATION ORDER, 1967, SEEKING SANCTION TO CONVERT AND UTILISE THE PROPERTY

Muhammed Asker v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Asker 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

Premarajan.a.P Vs Sriram Sambasiva Rao

Babuji Thariyan, Vs the Secretary

Aboobacker Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Santhosh.M Vs Bharathan

Ajeesh N, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

N.P.Selvaraj Vs State of Kerala