The Court quashed Condition No.6 of an order permitting land conversion under Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, which imposed a 10-year ban on transferring the property, holding such embargo on alienation is ultra vires.
Condition No.6 in Ext.P2 restraining the alienation of the land for a period of 10 years is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 1676 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
JINO MARY JOHN, AGED 26 YEARS, KALEEKKALJITHIN VILLA, EREZHA NORTH, KANNAMANGALAM, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
BY ADVS. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN SMT.UMMUL FIDA SMT.LAKSHMI SREEDHAR
RESPONDENTS:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.G.RANJITA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.1676/2021
: 2 :
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 5th day of July, 2021
The petitioner, who owns 3.24 Ares of land in Alappuzha District, is before this Court seeking to quash condition No.6 in Ext.P2, imposing restriction of transfer of property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 Sale Deed.
WP(C) No.1676/2021
: 3 :
to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent cannot put such a clog on alienation of property. It hits the constitutional right of the petitioner, guaranteed under Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
conditions in restraint of transfer, in the judgments in Ramankutty v. Principal Agricultural Officer, Malappuram and another [2014 KHC 3692] and Suresh K.R. v. Nadathara Grama Panchayat and others [2019 (5) KHC 725]. This Court held that the respondents have no power or authority to impose any condition putting a complete embargo on the right of alienation. This writ petition is therefore liable to be allowed following that law laid down by this Court.
The writ petition is allowed. Condition No.6 in Ext.P2 imposing restriction on transfer, would stand quashed.
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/05.07.2021
WP(C) No.1676/2021
: 4 :
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1676/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE OF SR |
COPY O O CHEP |
F TH PAD |
E SALE DEED NO DT. 28/6/2013 |
.1188/2013 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 |
TRUE SECON NO.13 TRUE RESPO 14977 |
COPY D RE 09/201 COPY NDENT /14 |
OF SPO 4H/K OF DA |
THE PROCEEDIN NDENT DATED .DIZ. THE ORDER OF TED 12/11/201 |
GS OF THE 4/6/2014 THE FIRST 4 NO.C8- |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE GOVER NO.13 |
COPY NMENT 30/201 |
O 5/AG |
F THE ORDER DATED RICULTURE. |
OF THE 3/8/2015 |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE HON'B DATED |
COPY LE CO 1/8/2 |
OF URT 018 |
THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. |
OF THIS 25888/2015 |
SR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether condition No.6 in the permission order imposing a 10-year restriction on alienation of converted land is legally sustainable.
Whether such a restriction puts a clog on alienation hitting the petitioner's constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 300A.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramankutty v. Principal Agricultural Officer, Malappuram and anotherRelied on¶27
Ramankutty v. Principal Agricultural Officer, Malappuram and another [2014 KHC 3692]
Suresh K.R. v. Nadathara Grama Panchayat and othersRelied on¶27
Suresh K.R. v. Nadathara Grama Panchayat and others [2019 (5) KHC 725]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jino Mary John
District Collector, Alappuzha
Sub Collector, Alappuzha
District Level Authorised Committee, Alappuzha
N. Nagares
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
