Dismissed

A.P.Joseph v. Veliyannur Gramapanchayat

Kerala HC10 Jun 2022WP(C)/26960/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition filed by a landowner challenging the Grama Panchayat's rejection of his building permit application. The court held that the rejection was based on the land being a paddy field under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and the order was not illegal or arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is left to the petitioner to approach the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2008.

A.P.Joseph Vs Veliyannur Gramapanchayat — Land Acquisition | 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. 26960 OF 2015

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

A.P.JOSEPH,

¶8

AGED 80 YEARS, S/O.PHILIP, ANIKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, PUTHUVELI, VELIYANNUR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.) SMT.P.R.REENA

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 VELIYANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P O VELIYANNUR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 634, REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2 SECRETARY VELIYANNUR GRAMAPANCHAYATH, P. O., VELIYANNUR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 634.

¶13

SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR,SC

¶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. 26960/2015

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(C). No. 26960 of 2015

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner is the owner and in possession of an extent of 30.30 Ares of and situated in survey No. 128/7 and 8 of Veliyannur Village. According to the petitioner, the said property was purchased in an auction conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- in the year 2006.

¶23

Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted an application seeking building permit, which was not granted. Being aggrieved, he has W.P.(C) No. 7707 of 2013 before this Court. In that case, this Court directed the first respondent Grama Panchayat to take a decision in the application filed by the petitioner.

¶24

Apparently, in compliance with the directions, the Secretary of the Veliyannur Grama Panchayat , the 2^nd respondent, has rejected the application assigning the reason that in view of the circular dated

¶25

W.P.(C) No. 26960/2015 : 3 :

¶26

31.07.2008 issued by the State Government, sanction can be granted only by the committee mentioned in the said circular.

¶27

The case projected by the petitioner is that the property is planted with coconut trees, areca nut trees, pepper vines etc. and it does not have the characteristic of a paddy field.

¶28

Admittedly, the issue is guided by the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('Act, 2008' for short). There is no case for the petitioner that he has resorted to any of the mechanism provided for the removal of property from the data bank or change of nature of land in contemplation of the provisions of the Act, 2008.

¶29

In that view of the matter, after perusing the pleadings and materials on record and hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Secretary assigning the reason that the property in question is a paddy

¶30

field, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary susceptible to be interfered with in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 26960/2015

¶32

: 4 :

¶33

Therefore, the writ petition has no sustenance and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶34

However, I leave open the liberty of the petitioner to approach

¶35

the authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2008.

¶36

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 26960/2015 : 5 :

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26960/2015

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL DTD 10/1/2007 EXT.P2 P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELIYANNUR TO THE PETITIONER DTD 23/6/2012 EXT.P3 P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT ENTRY IN THE DATE BANK ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, VELIYANNUR. EXT.P4 P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2012(1)KLT 491. EXT.P5 P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH 5/4/2013. EXT.P6 P6:-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 27/2/2015 OF THE SECRETARY OF THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH. EXT.P7 P7:-TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD 10/7/2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH. EXT.P8 P8:-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2010(3) KLT 16.

¶41

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶42

/True Copy/

¶43

PS to Judge.

¶44

A.P.Joseph v. Veliyannur Gramapanchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P.Joseph v. Veliyannur Gramapanchayat

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

Ally Sunny Vs District Collector

M.Sivakumar Vs a.Giriprasad