Allowed

Dr. P.G Beena v. the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector

Kerala HC16 Dec 2020WP(C)/39200/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition challenging the imposition of fees under Section 27A of Act 28 of 2008 for a land utilisation application filed prior to that section's incorporation. Relying on prior precedents, the court quashed the impugned order and set aside conditions regarding fee remittance.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned conditions in Ext.P4 set aside; petitioner free to utilise land without being bound by Section 27A; building permit directed to be given accordingly.

Dr. P.G Beena Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.39200 OF 2018(Y)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DR. P.G BEENA, AGED 57 YEARS, D/O.P.KANDAKUTTY, PERUTHODI HOUSE, NALLUR, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 001.

¶11

2 THE FEROKE MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FEROKE P.O., KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673 631.

¶12

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

S GOPINATHAN SR GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.39200 OF 2018(Y)

¶16

..2..

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 16th day of December 2020

¶19

The petitioner submitted an application under the Kerala

¶20

Land Utilisation Order, 1967 to utilise her land, comprised in Re.Sy.No. 194/2A, for other purposes. This application was on 3.10.2017, much before the incorporation of Sec.27A to Act 28 of 2008.

¶21

The application has been allowed. However, the

¶22

petitioner has been directed to remit fees applicable under Sec.27A(3) of Act 28 of 2008.

¶23

The learned Government Pleader submitted that based on Rule 12(17) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, the petitioner is liable to pay such fee.

¶24

The Division Bench of this Court in District

¶25

..3..

¶26

WP(C).No.39200 OF 2018(Y)

¶27

Collector v. Fr. Jose Uppani [2020 (4) KLT 612] and this Court in Fr. Jose Uppani v. District Collector [2020 (3) KLT

¶28

492] has held that the fees cannot be demanded. This Court in

¶29

Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd v. Revenue Divisional Officer

¶30

[2020 (5) KLT 56] held that Rule 12(17) is unenforceable.

¶31

In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned conditions in Ext.P4 order are set aside. The petitioner is free to utilise the land as though the petitioner is not bound by the rigor of Sec.27A of Act 28 of 2008. The building permit shall be given by the local authority, as thoguh the petitioner is not bound by the rigor of Sec.27A of Act 28 of 2008.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

¶36

WP(C).No.39200 OF 2018(Y)

¶37

..4..

¶38