Allowed

Sumathy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Aug 2022WP(C)/18722/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the decision refusing permission to retain land in the Data Bank was illegal for ignoring a prior order granting non-agricultural use. The petitioner was directed to reconsider the application considering the earlier permission.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the Form-5 decision considering the prior KLU Order and pass an order within two months.

Sumathy Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 18722 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUMATHY AGED 52 YEARS W/O GANESHAN, KRISHNAKRIPA, RVC ROAD, NEMMARA, PALAKKAD – 678508

¶8

BY ADVS. SARATH M.S. B.PREMNATH (E) MANI GOVINDA MARAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUT NAGAR, PALAKKAD 678001.

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALLANGI VILLAGE OFFICE, VALLANGI, PALAKKAD 678508.

¶13

SRI.SYAMANTHAK B S, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C) No.18722/2022

: 2 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

Dated this the 4^th day of August, 2022

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶22

The petitioner holds 21.5 Cents of land in survey No.333/1 in Vallangi Village, Chittur Taluk of Palakkad District. The petitioner wanted to construct a residential building in the property and therefore submitted an application under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order seeking permission for utilising the land for non-agricultural purposes. The Revenue Divisional Officer accorded permission to utilise 5 Cents of land for construction of residential building, as per Ext.P4 dated 19.10.2004.

¶23

The petitioner states that though she started building construction soon, she could not complete the construction. In the year 2021, when the petitioner resumed

¶24

W.P.(C) No.18722/2022

¶25

: 3 :

¶26

the construction activities, the Village Officer issued Ext.P5 Stop Memo dated 09.04.2021. The petitioner states that Ext.P5 Stop Memo is illegal and the Village Officer, who is subordinate to the Revenue Divisional Officer, cannot issue such a Stop Memo overlooking Ext.P4 order issued under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967.

¶27

The petitioner, however, submitted Ext.P6 application in Form-5 requiring to remove her land from Data Bank. The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P5 and permit the petitioner to go ahead with the construction. The petitioner also seeks to direct the 2^nd respondent-RDO to consider Ext.P6 application in a time bound manner.

¶28

The 2^nd respondent opposed the writ petition filing a Statement. The 2^nd respondent stated that though the petitioner has obtained an order under the KLU Order, 1967 for constructing a residential building, permission was granted on condition that field to field irrigation should not be obstructed due to construction of house. The petitioner was also directed to cultivate paddy in the remaining land.

¶29

W.P.(C) No.18722/2022

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

The 2^nd respondent pointed out that the land of the petitioner is included in the Land Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. In view of the provisions contained in the Act, 2008, construction cannot be allowed as long as the land is included in the Data Bank. On the basis of Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner, the Agricultural Officer submitted a report based on the LLMC inspection of the land. The Agricultural Officer recommended that the land should be retained in the Data Bank. It was under those circumstances that a Stop Memo was issued to the petitioner.

¶32

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

¶33

There is no dispute over the fact that the petitioner has obtained Ext.P4 order under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, whereunder permission has been granted to the petitioner for construction of a residential

¶34

W.P.(C) No.18722/2022

¶35

: 5 :

¶36

building in 5 Cents of land. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has started construction of building soon thereafter. The petitioner could not complete the construction due to financial difficulties.

¶37

When the petitioner resumed the construction in the year 2021, the Village Officer issued Ext.P5 Stop Memo to stop the illegal filling and conversion of paddy land.

¶38

The statement filed by the 2^nd respondent would

¶39

reveal that the LLMC and the Agricultural Officer have not considered the existence of Ext.P4 order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 while taking a decision on Ext.P6 Form-5 application of the petitioner. Annexure-R2(a) order produced by the 2^nd respondent does not even advert to the KLU Order.

¶40

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to reconsider Annexure-R2(a) decision taking into account Ext.P4 KLU Order and take a decision afresh on Ext.P6 application submitted by the petitioner. An order afresh shall be passed within a period

¶41

W.P.(C) No.18722/2022

¶42

: 6 :

¶43

of two months. Depending upon the order to be passed on Ext.P6, the Village Officer shall take a decision on continuance of Ext.P5 Stop Memo.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶46

aks/06.08.2022

¶47

W.P.(C) No.18722/2022

¶48

: 7 :

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18722/2022

¶50

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶51

Exhibit P1	TRUE	COPY O	F THE SA	LE DEED EXE	CUTED IN
	FAVOU 27/9/	R OF 2001	THE	PETITIONER	DATED
Exhibit P2	TRUE	COPY	OF	THE PO	SSESSION
	CERTI	FICATE	DATED 2	7/10/2021 I	SSUED BY
	VILLA RESPO	GE NDENT.	OFFICE	R, VALL	ANGI/3RD
Exhibit P3	TRUE	COPY	OF THE	BASIC TAX	RECEIPT
	ISSUE	D TO	THE	PETITIONER	DATED
	17/4/	2021	FROM	VILLAGE	OFFICE,
	VALLA	NGI.
Exhibit P4	TRUE	COPY	OF	THE KERAL	A LAND
	UTILI	ZATION	ORDER D	ATED 19/10/	2004.
Exhibit P5	TRUE	COPY	OF THE	STOP MEM	O DATED
	9/4/2	021	ISSUED	BY THE	VILLAGE
	OFFIC	ER.
Exhibit P6	TRUE	COPY	OF THE	APPLICATIO	N DATED
	6/11/ BEFOR	2021 E THE	SUBMITT 2ND RESP	ED BY PE ONDENT	TITIONER

¶52

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES

¶53

R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN FORM 5

Sumathy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumathy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laisa Eliyas Vs the Secretary, Nellikuzhi Grama Panchayat

Aslam P Vs Nellikuzhy Grama Panchayat, Kothamangalam

Mary Matha Church Vs State of Kerala

Sherly Mathew Vs Kerala State Election Commission

Shamsudheen, Vs Ittiva Grama Panchayat

P.Rajaji Vs Puthusserry Grama Panchayat