Allowed

Lalini M.S. v. the District Collector

Kerala HC4 Dec 2020WP(C)/21052/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought land use permission before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (as amended by Act 29 of 2018) came into force. The court applied Renji K. Paul (2019) to quash the condition in the departmental order requiring compliance with the subsequently introduced restrictions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed, and the Ext.P6 order directing compliance with the requirements of Act 29 of 2018 for change of classification and obtaining a building permit is quashed.

Lalini M.S. Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.21052 OF 2020(F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

LALINI M.S., AGED 67 YEARS, W/O RAM MOHAN.T.D, JANAKI NIVAS, ASHIRKADAV ROAD, ALUVA,ERNAKULAM-683101.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR SMT.M.S.SHAMLA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION(PO),KOZHIKODE-673020.

¶11

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION(PO),KOZHIKODE-673020.

¶12

3 THE TAHASILDAR(LAND RECORDS), KOZHIKODE TALUK,CIVIL STATION(PO), KOZHIKODE-673020.

¶13

4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL GP.

¶15

- THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMIS SION ON 04.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WPC 21052 of 2020

¶17

¶18

W.P.(C) No.21052 of 2020

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Petitioner holds an item of land measuring 9.3711 Ares in Valayanad Village. Although the land of the petitioner is shown in the revenue records as paddy land, the same was lying as a dry land when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act) came into force. Since the land of the petitioner was not a cultivable paddy land when the above statute was introduced, the petitioner preferred an application on 05.12.2017 under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order for permission to make use of the land for other purposes. On 16.07.2019, in terms of Ext.P6 order, the second respondent has granted the permission sought for by the petitioner subject to the condition that she will be entitled to seek change of classification of the land and obtain building permit only after complying with the requirements of Act 29 of 2018. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said condition in Ext.P6 order. Hence this writ petition.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶22

WPC 21052 of 2020

¶23

¶24

3. In Renji K. Paul v. Revenue Divisional

¶25

Officer , 2019 (2) KLT 262, this court held that if the holder of a land which is not included in the data bank prepared under the Act prefers an application for permission to make use of the land for other purposes under the Land Utilization Order before the coming into the force of the Act 29 of 2018 in terms of which Sections 27A and 27C were introduced to the Act, the said provisions cannot be pressed into service against such a land. In the case on hand, it is seen that the petitioner has preferred an application for permission under the Land Utilization Order on 05.12.2017 and Act 29 of 2018 was introduced in the Act only with effect from 30.12.2017. In other words, the provisions of Act 29 of 2018 cannot be pressed into service in respect of the land of the petitioner.

¶26

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P6 order, to the extant it directs that the petitioner has to comply with the requirements of Act 29 of 2018 for the purpose of seeking change of classification of the land and for obtaining building permit, is quashed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

WPC 21052 of 2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER,KRISHI BHAVAN,KOZHIKODE,DATED 27/09/2017 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04/10/2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 31/10/2017 OF W.P(C)NO.34701 OF 2017 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 05/12/2017 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BY VILLAGE OFFICER, VALAYANAD VILLAGE DATED 02/04/2019. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.1/90185/2020 DATED 16/07/2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶35

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS

¶36

NIL

Lalini M.S. v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalini M.S. v. the District Collector

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

M.Pechimuthu Vs State Election Commissioner

Sreeram Hollow Bricks Vs Ottapalam Municipality

T.Mohammed Musthafa, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Khusbu Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Khader Vs Eloor Municipality

Surya Agro Industries Vs Sreemoolanagaram Grama Panchayath