Allowed

Kunhimoideen v. the District Collector, Malappuram

Kerala HC17 Dec 2020WP(C)/21388/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of conditions attached to a land utilization permission. Relying on a prior decision, it held that provisions of the amended Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (Act 29 of 2018) could not be enforced on land where permission was sought before the amendment took effect.

What did the court decide?

Conditions 1 and 6 in Ext.P2 order granted by the second respondent are quashed.

Kunhimoideen Vs the District Collector, Malappuram — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 WP(C).No.21388 OF 2020(W)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

KUNHIMOIDEEN AGED 54 YEARS S/O. SAIDALU, THANDATHIL HOUSE, CHENNARA, KAVANCHERI P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ SMT.K.K.NESNA

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.-6765050

¶10

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TIRUR TIRUR (PO), PIN-676101, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3 TIRUR MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TIRUR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-676101, BY ADVS: SRI.P.VENUGOPAL, SC, TIRUR MUNICIPALITY SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL - GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No.21388 OF 2020(W)

¶14

¶15

W.P.(C) No.21388 of 2020

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

The petitioner holds an item of land measuring 7.78 Ares in Thrikkandiyur 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 (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 under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order for permission to make use of the land for other purposes. In terms of Ext.P2 order, the second respondent has granted the permission sought for by the petitioner subject to the condition that he shall comply with the requirements of Act 29 of 2018 in terms of which the Act was amended. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said condition and hence this writ petition.

¶18

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

¶19

In Renji K Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶20

WP(C).No.21388 OF 2020(W)

¶21

¶22

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 force of 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 application for permission under the Land Utilization Order on 04.11.2017, and Act 29 of 2018 was introduced 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.

¶23

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and conditions 1 and 6 in Ext.P2 order are quashed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶26

¶27

WP(C).No.21388 OF 2020(W)

¶28

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.36875/2017 DATED 17.11.2017. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.10.2018.

Kunhimoideen v. the District Collector, Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunhimoideen v. the District Collector, Malappuram

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

Herold Vs the District Collector, Collectorate, Civil Station, Kakkanad

Saleem. M Vs Sugadha Pradeep

Chellamma P.T. Vs Appellate Authority Under Rule 10 of

Jayaprakashan K.V. Vs Kannur Municipal Corporation

Varghese K Issac Vs the Secretary

Athira Shiju Vs State of Kerala