Allowed

Abdul Salam N P v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jul 2022WP(C)/6483/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside orders rejecting the petitioner's application for extension of a building permit. Directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the matter in light of a prior precedent, the court held it would be unjust to deny permission given the property was garden land and construction was nearly complete.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P13 and P14 set aside; Revenue Divisional Officer directed to reconsider matter and pass appropriate orders within one month.

Abdul Salam N P Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 6483 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

ABDUL SALAM N P, AGED 45 YEARS
NHERAPPOYIL HOUSE, P.O.MUYIPPOTH,
(VIA)MEPPAYYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673524.
BY ADVS.C.VATHSALAN
K.RAKESH ROSHAN
T.M.YUSAFF
THUSHARA.V

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.

¶9

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.O.VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673101.

¶10

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERUVANNOOR VILLAGE, (P.O), CHENGANNUR, (VIA), MEPPAYYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673027.

¶11

4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF CHERUVANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O.CHERUVANNOOR, (VIA) MEPPAYYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673027, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶12

5 THE SECRETARY, CHERUVANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, (P.O), CHERVANNOOR, (VIA) MEPPAYYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673027. BY ADVS.SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN, SR.GP Vinod Singh Cheriyan T.M.KHALID(K/000047/2013) K.P.SUSMITHA(K/956/2001)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶14

FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C).No.6483/2022

¶16

¶17

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶18

W.P.(C).No.6483 of 2022

¶19

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 14^th day of July, 2022

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶22

i. Issue a writ of certiorari and quash Exhibit.P14 as illegal.

¶23

ii. Declare that Act 28 of 2008 or the amended Act of 29/2018 is not applicable in the case of the land of the petitioner.

¶24

iii. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the character of his land corrected as garden land in the data bank.

¶25

iv. Direct the 3^rd respondent to correct the data bank so as to characterize the land of the petitioner as garden land and do the necessary correction in the Data Bank and BTR if any accordingly.

¶26

v. Direct the 5^th respondent to regularize the construction of the house of the petitioner as per Exhibit.P4.

¶27

vi. Issue such other writ or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to pass in the circumstances of the case.

¶28

(SIC)

¶29

W.P.(C).No.6483/2022

¶30

¶31

The petitioner purchased 5.65 cents of land in R.S.No.111/6 in Cheruvannoor Village for construction of a residential house. The 5^th respondent granted permit for construction of the building by way of Ext.P4 fixing the period of permit from 20/3/2015 to 19/3/2018. The construction of building is almost completed and only final works are to be done. Ext.P6 is the photographs of the building. It is the case of the petitioner that due to paucity of funds for doing the final works, the petitioner approached the bank and they insisted the petitioner to get extension of permit time. When application for extension was filed before the 5^th respondent, the same is denied by way of Exts.P7 and P8 letters holding that the records in the village shows that it is a Nanja land and advised to correct it by approaching the 2^nd respondent. Accordingly Exts.P9 and P11 are filed which are rejected by 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P14 based on Ext.P13 report. Hence this writ petition.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader.

¶33

W.P.(C).No.6483/2022

¶34

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner takes me through the documents produced along with the writ petition. The learned counsel submitted that the title documents show that the property of the petitioner is a garden land. Exts.P2 and P3 are the possession certificates dated 01.12.2014 and 04.05.2016. It is stated in those documents that the property is garden land. The learned counsel further submitted that even in Ext.P5 sketch, the adjacent property of the petitioner is treated as paramba. Ext.P4 is the building permit which is dated 20.03.2015. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the light of Ext.P4, the respondents erred in rejecting the application submitted under Form-5.

¶36

I think there is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Exts.P4 is the building permit issued to the petitioner by the Panchayat on 20.03.2015. That expired on 19.03.2018. When the petitioner submitted an application for extension, Ext.P14 order is passed. After going through the pleadings and documents produced, according to me, the findings by the Revenue Divisional Officer in Ext.P14 is unsustainable. Moreover, in Cheranelloor Grama Panchayath & Others v. Joe Thatttil [2020 (5) KLT 463] ,

¶37

W.P.(C).No.6483/2022

¶38

¶39

Division Bench of this Court observed like this:

¶40

“However, Secretary of the appellant Grama Panchayat was not at liberty to issue Ext.P6 notice directing the writ petitioner to secure necessary orders under Section 27A, since the said provision has come into force only with effect from 30.12.2017 while the permit was granted to the writ petitioner on 26.10.2015. Therefore, it is clear and evident that the provisions of Section 27A will not come into play in the matter of the permit granted to the writ petitioner.”

¶41

In this case the building permit was issued on 20.03.2015. Moreover, as evident by the possession certificate and the occupancy certificate, it is clear that the property is a garden land. The title document also shows that it is a garden land. Moreover the petitioner almost completed construction as evident by Ext.P6 photograph. At this stage, it will be an injustice to deny permission to the petitioner.

¶42

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶43

Exts.P13 and P14 are set aside.

¶44

The Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to

¶45

reconsider the matter and pass appropriate

¶46

W.P.(C).No.6483/2022

¶47

¶48

orders in the light of the observation in the decision reported in Cheranelloor Grama

¶49

Panchayath & Others v. Joe Thatttil [2020

¶50

(5) KLT 463] , as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶51

sd/-

¶52

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶53

¶54

W.P.(C).No.6483/2022

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6483/2022

¶57

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶58

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `24/10/2014 WITH N` `O MEPPAYYUR.`	`DOCUMENT DATED` `O.2478 OF 2014 OF S R`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `CERTIFICATE DATED`	`POSSESSION` `1/12/2014.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `CERTIFICATE DATED`	`POSSESSION` `4.5.2016`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `20/3/2015 ISSUED`	`BUILDING PERMIT DATED` `BY 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PETITIONERS PROPE` `PROPERTIES.`	`PLAN OF THE` `RTY AND SURROUNDINGS`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `CONSTRUCTED HOUSE`	`PHOTO OF THE` `OF THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `16/7/2018 BY 5TH`	`LETTER DATED` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `16/7/2018 BY 5TH`	`LETTER DATED` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PETITIONER BEFORE` `DATED 26/3/18.`	`PETITION SUBMITTED BY` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`LETTER BY 2ND` `27/4/2021`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `2ND RESPONDENT.`	`FORM 5 APPLICATION TO`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `12/11/2018 IN W.P`	`JUDGMENT DATED` `(C)NO.36682/2018.`
`Exhibit P13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `AGRICULTURAL OFFI` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`REPORT OF THE` `CER OF THE 4TH` `5.7.2021.`
`Exhibit P14`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `20/11/2021 BY 2ND`	`PROCEEDINGS DATED` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P15`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `21.5.2019 OF THE` `OF 4TH RESPONDENT`	`DECISION DATED` `MONITORING COMMITTEE` `.`
`Exhibit P16`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 4.1.2020`	`OFFICIAL GAZATTE`

Abdul Salam N P v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Salam N P v. the State of Kerala

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

Abdulla Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Muhammed Kutty Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Mujeeb Vs the Regional Transport Officer

M.T.Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

A. Salim Vs Neyyattinkara Municipality

Sabu Mathew Vs the Vathikudi Grama Panchayath