Dismissed

Ally Sunny v. District Collector

Kerala HC10 Jun 2022WP(C)/23959/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a declaration that land was dry land and a direction to issue a building permit. The court held that the Grama Panchayat’s refusal was justified as the property is classified as 'nilam' in revenue records and the petitioner failed to follow Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 to change the land nature. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner at liberty to resort to provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

Ally Sunny Vs District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 23959 OF 2015

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ALLY SUNNY AGED 62 YEARS W/O.SUNNY, CHACKUVAIL HOUSE, POTTA P.O, PAZHAMBILLY, CHALAKUDY. BY ADVS. SRI.GHOSH YOHANNAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶10

THRISSUR CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR 680 005.

¶11

2 KODAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH KODAKARA P.O, CHALAKUDY 680 684, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

BY ADV SRI.M.R.ANISON

¶13

R1- SRI.ARAVIND V MATHEW, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 BY SRI. M.R. ANISON

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C) No. 23959/2015

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶18

---------------------------------------------------------

¶19

W.P.(C). No. 23959 of 2015

¶20

---------------------------------------------------------

¶21

Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2022.

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶24

Issue a declaration that petitioner's property in Sy. No. 440/1 in Kodakara Village is dry land as evidenced in Ext. P3

¶25

To call for the records leading to Ext. P2 and issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to issue building permit.

¶26

Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted an application before the Secretary of the Kodakara Grama Panchayat , the second respondent, seeking a building permit. According to the petitioner, the application was rejected stating that the property for which the permit was sought for is a paddy field.

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 23959/2015

¶28

: 3 :

¶29

The case projected by the petitioner is that even though the nature of the property is described as 'paddy field' in the revenue records, that cannot be taken as conclusive proof to show that the property is a paddy filed.

¶30

It is also the case of the petitioner that it is a dry land and the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat was not right in rejecting the application for building permit.

¶31

I have perused the pleadings and materials on record and heard the learned counsel appearing for Kodakara Grama Panchayat .

¶32

Admittedly, the property is included in the revenue records as 'nilam'. The case projected by the petitioner is that it is actually a 'dry land'. But, fact remains, the issue is guided by the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('Act, 2008' for short). Even if the property is not included in the data bank, in order to

¶33

change the nature of the land, a clear procedure is prescribed under Section 27A of the Act, 2008.

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 23959/2015

¶35

: 4 :

¶36

There is no case for the petitioner that she has resorted to any of the procedures contemplated under the Act, 2008. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the stand taken by the Panchayat that the property is included in the revenue records as nilam and therefore, no building permit can be granted, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary, justifiable to be interfered with in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .

¶37

Needless to say, the writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶38

However, I make it clear that the petitioner is at liberty to ventilate her grievance by resorting to the provisions of the Act, 2008.

¶39

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 23959/2015

¶42

: 5 :

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23959/2015

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P2 EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.6.15 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 20.2.14 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICE, KODAKARA.

¶45

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶46

/True Copy/

¶47

PS To Judge.

¶48

Ally Sunny v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ally Sunny v. District Collector

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

Mammen Varghese @ Kunjumon, Vs Shajan C. Varghese

Mammen Varghese @ Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala

Usha Devarajan Vs Perumbavoor Municipality

S. Venkitachalam Vs Vishnu Nath IAS

A.P.Joseph Vs Veliyannur Gramapanchayat

M.Sivakumar Vs a.Giriprasad