Allowed

Jamsheer V.P v. Land Revenue Commissioner

Kerala HC17 Nov 2022WP(C)/22717/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought NOC for a petrol outlet on Wayanad Colonization Scheme land. District Collector rejected it based on residential/agricultural designation. Court held Land Assignment Act restrictions do not apply to the Scheme. Petition allowed; order quashed and reconsideration directed.

What did the court decide?

Reject order of the 2nd respondent quashed; petitioner permitted; 2nd respondent directed to reconsider application and pass fresh order within one month.

Jamsheer V.P Vs Land Revenue Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 22717 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

JAMSHEER V.P., AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. MAMMU C.K, KODAMBATTIL, MURIYANAL, KUNNAMANGALAM,
KOZHIKODE.

¶7

BY ADVS.
R.SUNIL KUMAR
A.SALINI LAL

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER

¶10

DEPARTMENT REVENUE (L), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD - 673122.

¶12

3 THE TAHSILDAR, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK OFFICE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYAND, 673592.

¶13

4 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, IIND FLOOR, P.M.K TOWERS, CIVIL STATION POST, WAYANAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 67302.

¶14

BY ADVS.
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RAJA KANNAN
KRIPA C. NAIR
Sr.GP. ASWIN SETHU MADHAVAN
SC. M. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P. (C) No. 22717 of 2022

¶17

¶18

V. G. ARUN, J.

¶19

W.P. (C) No. 22717 of 2022

¶20

Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2022

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner has been issued with a letter of intent by the 4^th respondent oil marketing company, for running a

¶23

petroleum retail outlet in his property. As per Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules 2002, the District Collector / 2^nd respondent has to grant No Objection Certificate for the outlet. Hence, the 4^th respondent submitted an application for NOC. By Ext. P3, the 2^nd respondent rejected the application holding that the land was assigned under the Wayanad Colonization Scheme (the Scheme for short), and can therefore be utilized only for residential and agricultural purposes. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to Ext. P6 judgment rendered by this court under similar circumstances wherein, after considering Ext. P4 letter issued

¶25

W.P. (C) No. 22717 of 2022

¶26

¶27

by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue dated 24.06.2017, this court proceeded to hold as follows:

¶28

The 4^th respondent after accepting the above application has issued a communication to the District Police Chief, the Tahsildar Sultan Bathery, The District Fire Officer Wayanad, Executive Engineer of PWD (roads), Wayanad and District Supplier Office Wayanad to report as to whether there are any negative aspects in allowing the petroleum outlet in petitioner’s property. The 3^rd respondent has reported that the property in which the petrol pump is establishing is assigned as per the Wayanad Colonization Scheme.

¶29

The 2^nd respondent without looking in to the Pattayam and the letter issued by the 1^st respondent rejected application finding that the property assigned is for residential and agricultural purpose. Copy of the rejection order of the 2^nd respondent dated 13.01.2022 is produced as Exhibit P3.

¶30

Learned Government Pleader pointed out that, by

¶31

mistake, in Ext. P6 judgment, Ext. P4 letter is described as a

¶32

W.P. (C) No. 22717 of 2022

¶33

¶34

letter issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner, whereas the letter is actually issued by the Additional Chief Secretary.

¶35

I find that the submission is correct since Ext. P4 letter, the contents of which is extracted in Ext. P6 judgment, is issued by the Additional Chief Secretary. Learned Government Pleader also pointed out that the order under challenge in this writ petition is issued prior to Ext. P6 judgment.

¶36

I am in respectful agreement with the findings in Ext. P6 judgment that the restriction under the Land Assignment Act and Rules will not be applicable to the Wayanad Colonization Scheme, in so far as the Scheme is issued under Section 3 of the Land Assignment Act, which contains no restriction as to manner in which the assigned land is to be utilised. Further in Ext. P5 Patta also there is no such condition.

¶37

The writ petition is accordingly allowed by setting aside Ext. P3 order of rejection and directing the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s application and to

¶38

W.P. (C) No. 22717 of 2022

¶39

¶40

pass fresh order in terms of the findings in Ext. P6 judgment and the observations herein. The order, as directed above, should be passed within one month of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

¶41

Sd/V. G. ARUN JUDGE

¶42

san

¶43

W.P. (C) No. 22717 of 2022

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22717/2022

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶47

Exhibit P1COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED
20.02.2020.
Exhibit P2COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT FOR GETTING NOC TO THE OUT LET
AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17.7.2020.
Exhibit P3COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 13.01.2022.

¶48

Exhibit P4COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY DATED 24.06.2017.
Exhibit P5COPY OF THE PATTAYAM.
Exhibit P6COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.5943/22
DATED 17.6.2022.

Jamsheer V.P v. Land Revenue Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamsheer V.P v. Land Revenue Commissioner

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

Majeed T. Vs the District Magistrate

Sivaprasad Vs the State of Kerala

N.K.Musthafa Vs the District Magistrate

Santhakumari .M. Vs the District Collector

Jagan John Vs the Uzhavoor Grama Pamnchayath

A.K.Mohammedali Vs the District Magistrate