Allowed

Thomas T.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Nov 2020WP(C)/22534/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought land use permission for unnotified lands. Court held fees must be calculated based on fair value applicable at the time of original application, not subsequent amendments. Quashed enhanced fee demand and directed second respondent to pass final orders granting permission within one month.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Exts.P8 and P9 communications quashed; Second respondent directed to pass final orders granting land use permission within one month.

Thomas T.P Vs State of Kerala — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.22534 OF 2020(N)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 THOMAS T.P., THANNIKKOTT HOUSE, CHULLIYODE ROAD, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD-673 592.

¶8

2 SASIDHARAN P.M., 'USHUS', WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE-673 005.

¶9

3 JOLLY THOMAS, THANNIKKOTT HOUSE, CHULLIYODE ROAD, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD-673 592.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR SMT.AMRUTHA SANJEEV

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

W.P.(C) No.22534 of 2020

¶14

¶15

2 THE SUB COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, MANANTHAVADI, MANANTHAVADI P.O., WAYANAD-670 645. 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SULTHAN BATHERY VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYAND-673 593. SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C)No.22534 of 2020

¶17

¶18

W.P.(C)No.22534 of 2020

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Petitioners preferred applications for permission to make use of the lands referred to in the writ petition which are unnotified lands in terms of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act) for other purposes. Exts.P1 and P2 are the applications preferred by the petitioners in this connection on 20.03.2019 and 05.03.2019 respectively. On Exts.P1 and P2 applications, the petitioners were called upon to pay fees required in terms of Section 27A of the Act. Exts.P3 and P4 are the communications issued to the petitioners by the competent authority in this regard. The petitioners have remitted the fees required to be remitted by them in terms of Exts.P3 and P4 communications. Even thereafter, final orders have not been issued as sought by the petitioners in Exts.P1 and P2 applications. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court in W.P. (C)No.18101 of 2020 and this Court, as per Ext.P7 judgment, directed the second respondent to pass final orders on Exts.P1 and P2 applications within two weeks from the date of receipt of a

¶21

W.P.(C)No.22534 of 2020

¶22

¶23

copy of the judgment. Pursuant to Ext.P7 judgment, petitioners are now issued Exts.P8 and P9 communications calling upon them to pay additional fee for consideration of Exts.P1 and P2 applications. Exts.P8 and P9 communications are under challenge in the writ petition.

¶24

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

¶25

It is conceded by the learned Government Pleader that Exts.P8 and P9 communications have been issued to the petitioners working out the fees payable on the basis of the fair value of the lands which came into force with effect from 15.05.2020.

¶26

In so far as Exts.P1 and P2 applications have been preferred by the petitioners as early as on 20.03.2019 and 05.03.2019 respectively, according to me, the petitioners are liable to pay fees only in terms of the fair value of the lands applicable as on the date of their applications. There is no dispute to the fact that it is the said fee that was demanded from the petitioners in terms of Exts.P3 and P4 communications, which the petitioners have remitted.

¶27

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, Exts.P8 and P9 communications are quashed and the second

¶28

W.P.(C)No.22534 of 2020

¶29

¶30

respondent is directed to pass final orders granting the permission sought for by the petitioners as per E xts.P1 and P2. This shall be

¶31

done within one month.

Sd/- JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

rkj

W.P.(C)No.22534 of 2020

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.3.2019 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS 1 AND 2
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 5.3.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 3.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONERS 1 AND 2
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 3.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN ISSUED TO PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 BY THE SUB TREASURY SULTHAN BATHERY
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF CHALLAN ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE SUB TRUASURY, SULTHAN BATHERY
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 7.9.2020 IN WPC 18101/2020
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF DEMAND LETTER DATED 28.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONERS 1 AND 2
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF DEMAND LETTER DATED 1.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THIRD PETITIONER

Thomas T.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas T.P 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

Shahid Vs the Village Officer

Swapna Jambhekar Vs the Corporation of Cochin

Johnson K.P., Vs Eloor Municipality

Rafeeq Vs the District Collector Malappuram

Binu Cherian Vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa Kerala)

Sruthimol S., Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer