Allowed

Muttath Sasidharan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Dec 2021WP(C)/24437/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order denying a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for a Petroleum Retail Outlet. The Court held that a prior judgment relied on by the ADM is inapplicable because the subject land was assigned under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, rather than the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960.

What did the court decide?

Ordered Ext.P7 set aside and the 2nd Respondent directed to reconsider the application for NOC and pass appropriate orders within one month.

Muttath Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 24437 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 MUTTATH SASIDHARAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAN P, MUTTATH, EDATTUMMAL NORTH, THRIKKARIPUR P.O, KASARGOD, KERALA, PIN-671310.

¶8

2 ERAMATH RAJENDRAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O KUNHIKANNAN M, ERAMATH, KUNIYAN, KARIVELLUR P.O, KANNUR, KERALA-682017.

¶9

3 RAJESH T.P., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN, THOTTUM PURATH HOUSE, VENGAL, CHERUVATHUR P.O, KASARGOD, KERALA-671313.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.VISHAK.K.JOHNSON SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.S.NITHIN (ANCHAL)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF REVENUE, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KASARAGOD, CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD, KERALA, PIN-671123.

¶14

WP(C) No.24437/2021

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

3 THE CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, KOZHIKODE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, III FLOOR, PMK TOWERS, CIVIL STATION POST, WAYANAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673020.

¶17

SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.24437/2021

: 3 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2021

¶24

The petitioners seek to quash Ext.P7 and direct the 2^nd respondent to issue NOC under the Petroleum Act, 1934 and Rules made thereunder for installation of Petroleum Retail Outlet in Survey No.59/1A of Thimiri Village in the property covered by Exts.P4 and P6.

¶25

The petitioners state that an extent of 1 Acre of property in Survey No.59/1A of Thimiri Village in Hosdurg Taluk was assigned to A.V.Gopalan under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The property was taken over by State in a ceiling proceedings relating to M/s. Periyar and Perinkanni Rubbers Limite. Petitioners 1 and 2 purchased 50 Cents of the said property from Kodoth Valappil Chitra. The 3^rd petitioner was selected by the 3^rd respondentOil Company to run a Petroleum Retail Outlet in the said land.

¶26

WP(C) No.24437/2021

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

The 3^rd respondent thereafter submitted an

¶29

application for issuance of NOC from the 2^nd respondent, to start a Petroleum Retail Outlet in the said property, under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. The application was rejected by the 2^nd respondent, as per Ext.P7, on the ground that in W.P.(C) Nos.32143 and 32145 of 2016, this Court has held that subsequent assignee cannot claim any right other than conferred on the original assignee. The petitioners contend that the said judgment will not apply to the case in hand since the assignment of the land now held by petitioners 1 and 2, was unconditional.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶31

The judgment in W.P.(C) Nos.32143 and 32145 of 2016 was dealing with lands assigned under the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 and in the context of the said Act, this Court held that subsequent assignee of the original Pattadar cannot claim any right, other than one conferred on the

¶32

WP(C) No.24437/2021

¶33

: 5 :

¶34

original assignee. In the case of the petitioners, the land in question was assigned under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and hence the judgment relied on by the 2^nd respondent to decline NOC, will not apply. Ext.P7 order is therefore legally unsustainable.

¶35

The writ petition is therefore allowed. Ext.P7 is set aside. The 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the application for NOC submitted by the 3^rd respondent and pass appropriate orders afresh thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of one month.

¶36

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/05.01.2022

WP(C) No.24437/2021

: 6 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24437/2021

¶41

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶42

Exhibit P1	TRUE	COPY OF THE	DEED OF ASSI	GNMENT
	DATED GOPAL	29.10.1977 AN.	IN FAVOUR OF	A.V.
Exhibit P2	TRUE 18.11	COPY OF SALE .1989 OF TRIK	DEED NO.3035/89 ARPUR SRO.	DATED
Exhibit P3	TRUE DATED	COPY OF SETTL 12.04.2007 T	EMENT DEED NO.1 RIKARPUR SRO.	360/07
Exhibit P4	TRUE 19.10	COPY OF SALE .2020 OF TRIK	DEED NO.1964/20 ARIPUR SRO.	DATED
Exhibit P5	TRUE DATED CORPO OFFIC	COPY OF THE L 20.02.2020 I RATION KO E.	ETTER OF CONFIR SSUED FROM INDI ZHIKODE DIVI	MATION AN OIL SIONAL
Exhibit P6	TRUE	COPY OF THE	MAHASSAR PREPAR	ED BY
	THE 19.11	VILLAGE OFFI .2020.	CER KLAYIKODE	DATED
Exhibit P7	TRUE	COPY OF THE	ORDER ISSUED B	Y THE
	ADDIT KASAR	IONAL DIS GOD DATED 23.	TRICT MAGIS 09.2021.	TRATE,
Exhibit P8	TRUE DATED	COPY OF THE 30.07.2014 3	DISABILITY CERTI RD PETITION.	FICATE

¶43

Muttath Sasidharan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muttath Sasidharan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hindustan College of Pharamacy Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Mariya Constructions, Vs Kerala Water Authority

Sasidharan Pillai T.S. Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited (Ksfe)

Sreekumaran Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Ltd.

George Elias and Associates, Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Basheer Vs Haritha v.Kumar