Writ challenging rejection of NOC for petroleum outlet. Court set aside Ext.P6 as reasons unsustainable, directing fresh NOC. Clarified NOC grant does not bar State’s suit on title.
Petitioner’s writ petition disposed of; Ext.P6 set aside; Writ petition directed 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders regarding grant of NOC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 10597 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
THOMAS G. PUTHENVEEDU AGED 48 YEARS S/O. VARKEY, PUTHENVEETTIL, AYYAPPANKOVIL PO, MATTUKATTA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685507
BY ADVS. BIJU .C. ABRAHAM THOMAS C.ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE STATE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR GOVERNMENT LAND RESUMPTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/ADM OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PAINAV PO, KAIYALIMALA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685603
4 THE TAHSILDAR
PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685538
WP(C) NO. 10597 OF 2023
2
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER UPPUTHARA VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685505
SRI. P.S.APPU, GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10597 OF 2023
3
T.R. RAVI, J.
W.P.(C). No.10597 of 2023
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
The writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 proceedings, whereby No Objection Certificate for starting of a petroleum outlet has been rejected. The reasons stated are that property in question comes within the proceedings No.GLR, CLR 210/2015/PEETCO dated 12.08.2016 of the Special Officer & Collector and there is a restriction regarding cutting of trees, obtaining possession certificate and other revenue certificates with regard to such lands. The second reason stated is that the property was a plantation land and hence cannot be utilised for starting a petroleum outlet. The petitioner contends that neither of the reasons are legally sustainable. As regards the proceedings dated 12.08.2016, the same had been subject matter of challenge in WP(C) No.40002/2016 and connected cases and by judgment dated 07.11.2018, this Court had held that the proceedings cannot be sustained. It was also held that the remedy of the respondent State was to institute appropriate civil suits before the competent civil court with regard to the title and the remedy was not to issue proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act. The counsel for the
WP(C) NO. 10597 OF 2023
4
petitioner submits that the said order has already been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court and further by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As far as the second contention is concerned, in Ext.P7 judgment this Court has considered the said issue with reference to the judgment in R.V.Devassia & Ors. V. Sub Registrar & Ors. reported in (2015 (1) KLT 825) and held that the consequence of user of exempted category of land for other purposes would only be that appropriate action can be taken by the State for cancelling the exemption and including the land in ceiling proceedings. Similar view has been taken in several other judgments.
In the above circumstances, neither of the reasons stated in Ext.P6 can be legally sustained. Ext.P6 is hence set aside. The writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders regarding the grant of NOC. The NOC shall not be refused for the reasons which have been stated in Ext.P6, which have already been found to be unsustainable. It is made clear that the grant of NOC, if any, will not in any manner affect the rights of the State for proceeding against the property in an appropriate civil suit, if the State has a claim that the petitioner does not have title to the property
Sd/--
T.R. RAVI JUDGE
Pn
WP(C) NO. 10597 OF 2023
5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10597/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO. 1622/2021 DATED 5/5/2021 OF PEERMADE SRO
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 24/5/2022 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF TAX FOR THE YEAR 2022-23
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 20/5/2022 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 28/5/2022 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO. DCIDK/3374/2022-E2 DATED 1/6/2022 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER BEARING FILE NO. DCIDK/3374/2022-E2 DATED 1/3/2023 THUS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/3/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO. 6120/2021
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R3 (A): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. GLR-(LR)210/2015/PER-TCO. DATED 12/8/16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the No Objection Certificate (NOC) for starting a petroleum outlet was legally sustainable based on cited proceedings and land classification.
Whether the petitioner can obtain a fresh NOC despite prior revenue proceedings affecting the property title.
THOMAS G. PUTHENVEEDU
STATE OF KERALA
THE STATE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR GOVERNMENT LAND RESUMPTION
DISTRICT COLLECTOR
TAHSILDAR PEERMADE TALUK
VILLAGE OFFICER UPPUTHARA
T.R. RAVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
