Disposed

P.T. Johny v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jun 2023WP(C)/10826/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of orders rejecting his building permit due to land being in data bank. Court dismissed writ but directed Revenue Divisional Officer to consider fresh applications under 2008 Act, ignoring previous conflicting findings, to determine status as of Act's inception.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; directed to file Form 5 and Form 6; RDO to consider applications based on land status as of 2008 Act date, ignoring Ext.P8 findings.

P.T. Johny Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 10826 OF 2014

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

P.T. JOHNY THARAYIL PALLIPURATHUKARAN VEEDU, C.R.A 8, M.R.V ROAD, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR 680 003 BY ADV SRI.N.P.SAMUEL

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001

¶9

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE P.O -680 003

¶10

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THRISSUR, AYYANTHOLE P.O -680 003

¶11

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR -680 003

¶12

5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR -680 003

¶13

6 THE CONVENOR LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR -680003 SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶15

05.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO.10826 OF 2014

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2023

¶20

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

¶21

“(i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Exhibits P3 and P8 orders.

¶22

(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order of direction to the respondents to accord permission to the petitioner to construct residential buildings in his property.”

¶23

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

¶24

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who was an 82 year old man at the time of filing of this writ petition, was the owner of 1.02 Acres of land in Survey No.825 of Ayyanthole Village covered by Ext.P1 title deed. It is submitted that he had submitted requests for building permit in respect of the property and Exts.P4 and P5 reports were generated stating that the property had been converted long prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter

¶25

WP(C) NO.10826 OF 2014

¶26

¶27

referred as ‘the 2008 Act’). It is submitted that this Court, by Ext.P6 judgment, had directed the consideration of the petitioner’s application for permission to use the land for other purposes. Though Ext.P7 representation was submitted on 09.10.2013, it is submitted that the same was rejected by Ext.P8 order of the District Collector on 06.12.2013 stating that the property stands included in the data bank and is fit for paddy cultivation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings in Ext.P8 are absolutely incorrect, as is evident from Exts.P4 and P5, and that, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as sought for.

¶28

A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader submits that, in view of the fact that the application submitted by the petitioner was in 2013 and since the property of the petitioner stood included in the data bank as paddy land, the contention of the petitioner that he was entitled to an order for use of the property for residential purposes cannot be accepted. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that a Division Bench of this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶29

WP(C) NO.10826 OF 2014

¶30

¶31

Ekm. v. M/s. Poothotta Resorts Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (1) KHC 34] had held that, even in cases where permission under Kerala Land Utilization Order had been granted for conversion of the property, if the property stands included in the data bank, applications under the provisions of the 2008 Act and the Rules made thereunder have to be resorted to for removal of the property from the data bank.

¶32

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the orders as sought for in the writ petition are not liable to be granted. However, in case the petitioner submits proper applications in Form 5 and Form 6 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the applications shall be considered and disposed of, taking note of the status of the property as on the date when the 2008 Act came into force. Exts.P4 and P5 shall also be looked into by the Revenue Divisional Officer while passing orders as directed above and a KSREC report shall also be obtained. The findings in Ext.P8 will not be conclusive of the status of the property as on the date when the 2008 Act came into force and such findings will not be relied on to reject the applications.

¶33

WP(C) NO.10826 OF 2014

¶34

¶35

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

NP

¶40

WP(C) NO.10826 OF 2014

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10826/2014

¶43

`PETITIO`	`NER’S`	`EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`PHOTOCOPY OF` `REGISTRY OFFI` `PETITIONER DT`	`DOCUMENT NO 1940 OF 1969 OF THE SUB` `CE,AYYANTHOLE IN THE NAME OF THE` `D 20-06-1969`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`ORDER DATED 27-1-2007 ISSUED BY R3`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE PHOTO CO` `2013 ISSUED B`	`PY OF ORDER NO B2-146-13 DTD 8-3-` `Y R3`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`PHOTO COPY OF` `DTD 28-1-2010`	`THE REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`PHOTO COPY OF` `DTD NIL`	`THE REPORT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`PHOTO COPY OF` `HON'BLE COURT`	`JUDGMENT DTD 3-09-2013 OF THIS` `IN WPC NO 19356/13`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`PHOTO COPY OF` `BEFORE R2 ON`	`REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONER` `9-10-2013`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8`	`PHOTO COPY OF` `OF THE 2ND RE`	`ORDER NO B3-61225/13 DTD 6-12-2013` `SPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P9`	`PHOTO COPY OF` `PETITIONER BE`	`REVIEW PETITION FILED BY` `FORE R2 ON 13-1-2014`
`EXHIBIT`	`P10`	`PHOTO COPY OF` `BY PETITIONER`	`REMINDER LETTER DTD 18-3-2014 SENT` `TO R2`
`RESPOND`	`ENTS’`	`EXHIBITS:`
`EXHIBIT`	`R2(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF` `BANK`	`THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DRAFT DATA`

P.T. Johny v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.T. Johny v. 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

Joseph Xavier Vs Vishnu Raj. P. IAS

P. Harikumar Vs Smt. Gayathri Devi M.

P R Sukumaran, Vs Vijay Shankar Pandey

Suresh Kumar Vs Chengannur Municipality

Zeenath K.M. Vs the Secretary, Karumalloor Panchayath

Suresh Kumar Vs the Erath Grama Panchayath