Partly allowed

Paikattuchali Alavi v. the Kondotty Municipality

Kerala HC8 Jul 2022WP(C)/156/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging notices to reconvert land. It made an interim stay order on building authority notices absolute, subject to the outcome of an appeal against a Revenue Divisional Officer notice for land conversion under a 2008 Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of by making the interim order absolute; the municipality must withdraw coercive action if enabling orders under the 2008 Act are produced.

Paikattuchali Alavi Vs the Kondotty Municipality — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.156 of 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 156 OF 2016

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

PAIKATTUCHALI ALAVI AGED 45 YEARS S/O.P.C.MUHAMMED, PAIKATTUCHALI HOUSE, MONGAM P.O., MARAYUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD SRI.ABDUL MAJEED.N SMT.V.K.ANJU SMT.P.M.CIGY SRI.NEBU P.JOSEPH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KONDOTTY MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KONDOTTY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, (FORMERLY THE KONDOTTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH)-676505.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY KONDOTTY MUNICIPALITY, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505.

¶12

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676505.

¶13

R3 - SRI.ARAVIND V MATHEW,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.07.2022, THE

¶15

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) No.156 of 2016

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 8^th day of July, 2022

¶20

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶21

(1) Call for the records leading to Exhibits P5 and P6 and to quash the same, by issuing a writ of certiorari.

¶22

(2) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to withdraw Exhibits P5 and P6 notices and to close the proceedings.

¶23

(3) Issue any such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the interest of justice.

¶24

The case put forth by the petitioner is that petitioner is the owner of an extent of 12.52 Ares of property in Sy.No.283/11-2 of Kondotty Village, Kondotty Taluk, Malappuram District. Petitioner and his co-owner sought permission to make constructions in the said property from the Secretary of the Kondotty Municipality, Tirur – the 2^nd respondent and permission was granted; construction

¶25

was completed; the occupancy certificate was issued by the Secretary of the Kondotty Municipality.

¶26

According to the petitioner, evident from Exhibit P4, the property tax was also accepted by the Municipality. However, later on a complaint filed by a third person, the Secretary of the Kondotty Municipality has passed Exhibit P5 order

¶27

dated 23.09.2015, whereby the petitioner was directed to produce certain

¶28

W.P.(C) No.156 of 2016

¶29

¶30

documents in order to establish that the permit secured by the petitioner is in accordance with law. It is also pointed out in Exhibit P5 that the property in which the building construction was carried out is a paddy field; petitioner has not produced any order from the respective statutory authority to change the character of the paddy field and further that, the property in question is surrounded by paddy field. Later, the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued Exhibit P6 order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 dated 9.10.2015, whereby the petitioner was directed to reconvert the property as a paddy field by removing the soil dumped into the property.

¶31

When the writ petition was admitted to the files of this Court, the following interim order was passed on 5.1.2016:

¶32

“ Admit

¶33

Govt. Pleader takes notice for R3. Urgent notice to RI and R2 by Speed Post.

¶34

The Petitioner is free to Challenge Ext.P6 order in a Statutory appeal. Any such appeal filed within one month from today Shall be dealt with on merits. However, there will be a stay of demolition pursuant to Ext.P5 notice for a period of two months.”

¶35

From the interim order, it is clear that though the proceedings pertaining to Exhibit P5 of the Secretary of the Panchayat was stayed by this Court, so far as Exhibit P6 is concerned, petitioner was given the liberty to prefer an appeal apparently in the view that both proceedings are not germane to be considered in

¶36

W.P.(C) No.156 of 2016

¶37

¶38

a writ petition.

¶39

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri.K.Abdul Jawad, learned Government Pleader Sri.Aravind V. Mathew for the State and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

¶40

In my considered opinion, if the construction is carried out in a paddy field, it was an act prohibited under section 14 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. However, the Secretary did not notice the nature of the property and it was thereupon that the building permit was granted and occupancy was issued after the construction was completed.

¶41

Therefore, in all respects, the construction of the building was carried out by the petitioner on the basis of the permit granted by the Secretary and tax is also accepted after the construction is over. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that pursuant to Exhibit P6 order issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, to the knowledge of the learned counsel, appeal is preferred before the Appellate Authority, which liberty was left open when the interim order was passed by this Court. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that in the data bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee of the 2^nd respondent Municipality, the property is shown as converted land prior to the introduction of Act, 2008. This is recorded.

¶42

In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions. Therefore, the writ

¶43

W.P.(C) No.156 of 2016

¶44

¶45

petition is disposed of making the interim order absolute, however, subject to any orders passed by the Appellate Authority against Exhibit P6 order dated 9.10.2015 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur. I also make it clear that, if the petitioner is producing any enabling orders from the respective statutory authority as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the Secretary shall take note of the same and withdraw the coercive action threatened under Exhibit P5 notice dated 23.9.2015.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶48

smv

¶49

W.P.(C) No.156 of 2016

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 156/2016

¶52

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶53

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DT.2-5-2009. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DT.15-5-2014. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DT.4-8-15. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF 3 ROOMS NAMELY 16/12L, 16/12M AND 16/12N. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.23-9-15 SENT FROM KONDOTTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FROM THE R3 DT.9-10-15.

¶54

P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK OF PADDY LAND AND WET LANDS OF KONDOTTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

Paikattuchali Alavi v. the Kondotty Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paikattuchali Alavi v. the Kondotty Municipality

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

Augusty Vs the State of Kerala

Laina Shiju Vs Elamkunnapuzha Grama Panchayath

Abdul Rahim Vs Kozhikode Muinicipal Corporation

Vinoj Vs State of Kerala

C.Rajan Pillai Vs the State of Kerala

Sebi.P. Vs the State of Kerala