Allowed

M.B.Rajagopal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2021WP(C)/21962/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court quashed the refusal by Kochi Corporation to grant a building permit to the Bharathiya Janatha Party for a land acquired by GCDA for residential purposes. The court held that the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 has no application to such lands.

What did the court decide?

Directed Kochi Corporation to grant building permit applied for by petitioners within three weeks, distinguishing the case from Section 27A non-application jurisprudence.

M.B.Rajagopal Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.21962 OF 2020(U)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 M.B.RAJAGOPAL AGED 65 YEARS

¶8

S/O. AYYAPPAN PILLAI, STATE COMMITTEE MEMBER, BHARATHIYA JANATHA PARTY (BJP) KERALA, RESIDING AT MULLASSERY SRUTHIYIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLI (W) VILLAGE, VAZHAPPALLI (W) P.O. PIN-686 103.

¶9

2 S.JAYAKRISHNAN,

¶10

S/O. SANAKARA WARRIYER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PRESIDENT, BHARATHIYA JANATHA PARTY (BJP), RESIDING AT SREEDHALAM, MANNAM, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.N.ANILKUMAR SRI.SINU.G.NATH

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT OF KERALA,SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶15

2 KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PARK AVENUE, MARINE DRIVE ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011.

¶16

3 THE SECRETARY, KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PARK AVENUE, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011.

¶17

¶18

W.P.(C) No.21962 of 2020

¶19

4 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, EXTENSION OFFICE, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, VYTTILA, COCHIN-682 019

¶20

5 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE (RDO) OFFICE OF THE RDO, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682 011.

¶21

6 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-682 030.

¶22

7 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (LLMC) FOR COCHIN CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 019

¶23

8 ADDL.R8- GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, P.B.NO.2012, KOCHI-682 020.

¶24

ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.02.2021 IN IA NO.2/2020 IN WP(C) NO.21962/2020.

¶25

BY ADV. SMT.SAREENA GEORGE,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION SRI.ADARSH MATHEW SMT. DHANYA T MALLAR SRI.SUDHISH KUMAR, SC SMT.RANJITA.G, GP

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-01-2021, THE COURT ON 02-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

W.P.(C) No.21962 of 2020

¶29

W.P.(C) No.21962 of 2020

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Second petitioner is the Ernakulam District President of Bharathiya Janatha Party and the first petitioner is a State Committee member of the said political party. A land was purchased by the said political party in the name of the first petitioner on 08.06.2018 as p er Ext.P1 assignment deed. The land covered by Ext.P1 assignment deed was acquired by the vendor in Ext.P1 assignment deed in term s of exchange deed No.5498 of 2000 of Ernakulam Sub Registry and assignment deed No.5571 of 2000 of the very same Sub Re gistry. After the purchase of the land, petitioners have applied for a building permit to construct a building in the land for the requirement of the political party. It is alleged by the petitioners that the application preferred by the petitioners for building permit is not being considered by the Corporation, taking the stand that the petitioners need to obtain permission under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy

¶32

W.P.(C) No.21962 of 2020 4

¶33

Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act') since the land is shown in the revenue records as 'Nilam'. The case of the petitioners is th at since the land covered by Ext.P1 assignment deed is part of the land acquired, developed and allotted by the Greater Cochin Development Authority(GCDA) for residential purposes under a development scheme, Section 27A of the Act cannot have any application to the said land. Th e petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader as also the leaned counsel for the Kochi Corporation.

¶35

As noted, the land covered by Ext.P1 assignment deed was acquired by the vendor therein in terms of exchange deed No.5498 of 2000 of Ernakulam Sub Registry and assignment deed No.5571 of 2000 of the very same Sub Registry. Ext.P7 is the communication issued by the GCDA to the vendor in Ext.P1 assignment deed. Ext.P7 indicates that the land covered by exchange deed No.5498 of 2000 is one assigned by the GCDA to the vendor in

¶36

W.P.(C) No.21962 of 2020 5

¶37

Ext.P1 assignment deed in exchange of the land surrendered by him to the GCDA for development of a road. Similarly, Ext.P7 indicates that the land obtained by the vendor in Ext.P1 assignment deed as per Assignment deed No.5571 of 2000 is one assigned by the GCDA to another person in exchange of the land surrendered by him to the GCDA for development of a road. Ext.P7 also indicates that both the said items are lands in an area acquired, developed and allotted by the GCDA for residential purposes in terms of a development scheme. In State of Kerala and others v. Binu Mathew Chacko and others, 2020 (6) KHC 717, a Division Bench of this court h eld that the provisions of the Act will not have any application to the lands acquired, developed and allotted for residential or other purposes by Governmental Agencies under development schemes framed under the Town Planning legislation. It is also held by the Division Bench in the said case that permission is deemed to have been granted for such lands under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. In the light of the said decision of the Division Bench, the Corporation cannot insist compliance of the provisions of Section 27A of the Act for considering

¶38

W.P.(C) No.21962 of 2020 6

¶39

application for building permit in such lands, even if the said lands are shown in the revenue records as 'Nilam'. I n Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2020 (5) KLT 403, this Court held that where statutory permission for change of user of land is granted for conversion of a paddy land to a garden land, then it is the obligation of the competent authority under the Land Tax Act to make a fresh assessment of the land so as to collect the higher land tax for such converted land and to issue appropriate directions to the officers concerned to make additional entries in the Basic Tax Register so as to reflect the nature of the land as garden land/Purayidam in the said Register.

¶40

The writ petition, in the circumstances, is disposed of directing the Corporation of Kochi to grant the building permit applied for by the petitioners, if the application of the petitioners is otherwise in order. This shall be done within three weeks. It is made clear that the petitioners would be free to prefer appropriate application before the competent authority under the Kerala Land Tax Act for reassessment of the land. Needless to say that if the petitioners prefer

¶41

W.P.(C) No.21962 of 2020 7

¶42

application for re-assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act, the land of the petitioners shall be re-assessed as dry land and appropriate additional entries shall be made in the Basic Tax Register indicating the present classification of the land.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶45

¶46

¶47

W.P.(C) No.21962 of 2020

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONERS'EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 2315/18

¶51

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH SHOWING THE LAYING OF THE PROPERTY

¶52

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EXHIBIT P4 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EXHIBIT P4 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 4489/2019 DATED 8.10.2019

¶53

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE DISTRICT PRESIDENT OF BJP DATED 13.6.2019 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.4126/PL/3/2018/GCDA DATED 29/05/2018. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1419/2020 DATE 04.12.2020

M.B.Rajagopal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.B.Rajagopal 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar, Vs the District Collector

The Principal, Mary Mount Public School Vs Aji Thomas

Mohammed Mubarak.K.v Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.

M.K.Korah Vs the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority

Beerankutty Haji P.V. Vs Tirur Municipality

Varghese T.J. Vs Changanassery Municipality