Disposed

Sparkle Homes Private Limited v. the Sub Collector, Fort Kochi

Kerala HC23 Dec 2022WP(C)/28795/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed petitioners to apply under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, for utilization of their property. It directed the first respondent to consider such applications within three months. An interim stay on the impugned order was extended pending the outcome of the new application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to apply under the Act, 2008 within one month; first respondent to consider application within three months; interim stay extended for five months.

Sparkle Homes Private Limited Vs the Sub Collector, Fort Kochi — 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 23^RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 2ND POUSHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 28795 OF 2016

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SPARKLE HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MRS.MINI JOSEPH, 39/4844, M.G.ROAD, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM 682 016.

¶8

2 AMAX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ARAVIND KUMAR, 39/4844, M.G.ROAD, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM 682 016.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.N.HARIDAS SMT.SIBY.P.JOSE SRI.K.T.BOSCO SHRI.SAIFUDEEN T.S SMT.SMITHA GOPINATH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE SUB COLLECTOR, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI 682 001.

¶12

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI.

¶13

3 THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, VYTILLA, KOCHI - 682 018

¶14

W.P.(C.) No. 28795/2016 2

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY SRI.JOBY JOSEPH,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C.) No. 28795/2016 3

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:-

¶20

“ i) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 order, srutinize and quash the same;

¶21

ii) Pass such other orders, interlocutory or otherwise, which are deemed fit and proper to meet the ends of justice and which may be prayed for from time to time; and

¶22

iii) Allow this writ petition with costs. ”

¶23

Petitioners 1 and 2 are the absolute owners in possession of the property having an extent of 1183.845 cents and 1195 cents in Survey Nos. 19/9, 20/1, 2, 3, 3-1, 5, 20/3-2, 21/1/1 in thandeper No. 24413 and 23/1, 5-1, 10,11,12,24/8,6,10B, 12/1, 13, 104/1, 2A, 2B, 4A,5,7,105/1B, 1B, 2B,3, 106/1,6,7B, 11-2, 16,17,18,19A, 107/1, 1A, 108/3, 5, 8 in thandeper No. 24963 and 21,1,108/6A in thandeper No. 25661 and 24/4, 1113, 105/5, 108/3-2,6,8A, 8B, 5 in thandeper No. 25662 of Edappally South Village, Kanayannur Taluk. The case

¶24

W.P.(C.) No. 28795/2016 4

¶25

projected by the petitioners is that petitioners are served with Ext.P1 prohibitory order as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, which finally culminated in Ext.P3 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi dated 16.06.2016 whereby the properties were found to be paddy land and since the petitioners have attempted to convert the same, it is against the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967; and therefore, the Tahsildar was directed to take possession of the property and the petitioners were directed to restore the property to its original position. It is thus basically challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, this writ petition is filed.

¶26

The paramount contention advanced by the petitioners is that the property is not included in the data bank constituted as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, (for short, the 'Act, 2008'). It is true that prior to the introduction of Section 27A of the Act, 2008, on and with effect from 30.12.2017, the remedy available to an

¶27

W.P.(C.) No. 28795/2016 5

¶28

aggrieved person for utilisation of the property for other purposes, other than paddy cultivation was to approach the authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and seek permission to do so. Admittedly, petitioners have not filed any application seeking any orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. However, from Ext.P3 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, it is categoric and clear that the petitioners have attempted to convert the property without securing appropriate orders. Even though, it is contended that the property is not included in the data bank, it is an admitted fact that the properties are included in the revenue records and BTR as paddy fields. Now, since from 30.12.2017, unnotified lands are guided by Section 27A of the Act, 2008 and other consequential provisions of the Act, 2008, in order to utilise the property for other purposes other than paddy cultivation and agricultural operations, necessarily the petitioners have to make an application before the statutory authority under the Act, 2008.

¶29

W.P.(C.) No. 28795/2016 6

¶30

When the writ petition was admitted to the files of this court, proceedings pertaining to Ext.P3 was stayed for a period of one month which was successively being extended and extended until further orders on 07.06.2017, which order is still in force.

¶31

Today when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioners have produced a report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC). The report shows that in the property there are scattered trees/vegetation and thereupon, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 is not correct and will have to be interfered with.

¶32

I am of the considered opinion that, it is for the petitioners to pursue the remedy as directed above, also by producing the report of the KSREC before the statutory authority as per the provisions of the Act, 2008.

¶33

In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions. Petitioners are given the liberty to file suitable

¶34

W.P.(C.) No. 28795/2016 7

¶35

application before the first respondent in contemplation of appropriate provisions of the Act, 2008 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any such application is received, the first respondent is directed to consider the same, in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter. The interim order granted by this Court against Ext.P3 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 will stand extended for a period of five months. Thereafter, the petitioners will be guided by the decision so taken by the authority under the Act, 2008 as directed above.

¶36

If ultimately, it is found that the property is liable to be removed in terms of the provisions of the Act, 2008, I am of the view that there is no point in further pursuing Ext.P3 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

Sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

DCS/23.12.2022

W.P.(C.) No. 28795/2016 8

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶43

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER DATED 13.4.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATD 18.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF HTE ORDER DATED 16.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 3.5.2016 REFERRED TO IN EXT.P3
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK PERTANING TO THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMET DATED 2.3.2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'LE COURT IN WPC NO.6511/2015
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT DATED 9.3.2021
Exhibit P7(a)	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PUBLISHED DATA BANK DATED 22/02/2021.
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORUM 9 DATED 22/09/2021.

¶44

W.P.(C.) No. 28795/2016 9

¶45

Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC.NO.11379 OF 2022 DATED 31/03/2022. Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED 27/03/2021. Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED 28/03/2021. Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED 29/04/2021 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTIESCOMPRISED IN SY.NOS.104/1, 104/2, 104/4, 104/5 AND 104/7 IN EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED 28/04/2021 NO.A-172/15/KSREC/003982/21. Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED 28/04/2021 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTIES COMPRISED IN SY NOS. 105/1, 105/4, 106/15, 106/21 AND 108/1. Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID CHART PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 03/10/2017 ISSUED BY THE SRO IDAPPALLY. Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 24/09/2022 WITH RESPECT TO THE SPORTS CITY.

Sparkle Homes Private Limited v. the Sub Collector, Fort Kochi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sparkle Homes Private Limited v. the Sub Collector, Fort Kochi

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

Subijith.K Vs Raghuvendra Singh

Nithin Suku Vs Raguvendra Singh

Jeeva Jose Vs Raghuvendra Singh

Xaviour P.Kidangen Vs Malayattoor Neeleswaram Grama Panchayat

Abijith Vs Koratti Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Mini Sajan Varghese Vs State of Kerala