Firoz v.a., S/O Abdul Latheef, Vs State of Kerala

¶1

2025:KER:20328

¶2

WP(C)No.27368 of 2024

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶7

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

WP(C) NO. 27368 OF 2024

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

FIROZ V.A., S/O ABDUL LATHEEF,
AGED 38 YEARS
VARIKADAN HOUSE, PALLIKAVALA, MUDICKAL P.O.,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683547

¶11

BY ADV K.C.VINCENT

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

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

¶14

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686669

¶15

3 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683547

¶16

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, PERUMBAVOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683547

¶17

5 THE PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, PERUMBAVOOR, PPERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 683547

¶18

BY ADVS.
K T THOMAS
MATHEW BOB KURIAN(K/381/1991)

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

Smt.Deepa.V, G.P

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

2025:KER:20328

¶23

WP(C)No.27368 of 2024

¶24

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

This writ petition is f i led by the petitioner seeking

¶27

the following releifs:

¶28

a) Issue a declaration that the lands having an extent of 10.25 Ares comprised in Block No.63 and Re-survey No. 97 of Perumbavoor Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk is eligible for issuance of building permit without securing any permission under Section 27A of the 2008 Act, in view of Exhibit P3, P4 and P9.

¶29

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 5th respondent to grant building permit to the petitioner untrammeled by the categorization of the subject land as nilam in the Basic Tax Register.

¶30

c) In the alternative, issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to fnalise the application under Clause 6 of the KLU Order, the i subject matter of Exhibit P5 in view of the declaration of law in Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Ofcer, reported in 2019 fi (3) KLT 838 and other judgments.

¶31

d) Dispense the petitioner from producing the English translation of the vernacular documents produced in the writ petition.

¶32

e) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems ft to grant in the facts and i circumstances of the case.

¶33

2 . Today when the matter came up for consideration,

¶34

the learned counsel for the petitioner brought the attention

¶35

2025:KER:20328

¶36

WP(C)No.27368 of 2024

¶37

¶38

of this Court to Ext.P10 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Of fi cer, in compliance with the interim order passed by this Court on 20.12.2024. The said order was produced along with I.A No 1/2024. As per the said interim order, the application submitted by the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioner under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order was directed to be considered. The said interim order was passed taking note that the application was pending since 2015.

¶39

3 . However, on going through Ext.P10, it is seen that the application was dimissed and the only reason mentioned for rejecting the application is that, the same was submitted by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted the relief on the basis of the same.

¶40

4. After considering all relevant aspects, I f i nd that, the said f i nding is not at all justif i able in view of the fact that being the successor-in-interest of the property, the petitioner would be stepping into the shoes of original owner and thereby he will have every right to prosecute and continue the proceedings initiated on the basis of the application submitted by his predecessor-in-interest under

¶41

2025:KER:20328

¶42

¶43

WP(C)No.27368 of 2024

¶44

the Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Therefore, the reason mentioned in Ext.P10 order, for rejecting the same is not at all legally sustainable.

¶45

5. The observations made by this Court in Ext.P11 judgment passed in WP(c) No. 12655/2020 fortif i es the view taken by this Court. In para 5 of Ext.P11, it has been clearly observed by this Court that, once a property holder alienates or transfers his rights and interests over a property to another by execution and registration of a sale deed, as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, all the rights and interests of the purchaser of a property will stand conveyed to the purchaser.Therefore it was observed therein that the successor in interest alone will have the right to pursue the application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.

¶46

6 . Thus it is evident that, Ext.P10 was passed on a reason which is not sustainable. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner and to pass fresh orders on the application submitted by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner in the light of the observations made in Ext P10

¶47

2025:KER:20328

¶48

¶49

WP(C)No.27368 of 2024

¶50

on the merits of the application. A decision shall be taken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment, dehors the reason mentioned in Ext.P10 order to reject the application, i.e, the application was submitted by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶53

SM/22.03

¶54

2025:KER:20328

¶55

WP(C)No.27368 of 2024

¶56

¶57

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27368/2024

¶58

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶59

`Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED` `13.04.2023`
`Exhibit P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 2532` `OF 2019 OF S.R.O. PERUMBAVOOR`
`Exhibit P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE` `REVENUE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY` `DATED 20.11.2023`
`Exhibit P4`	`A TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BUILDING EXISTED IN` `THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DATED NIL`
`Exhibit P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE` `VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR, BEFORE THE` `REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DATED 15.05.2015,` `BEARING NO.147/15, IN RELATION TO APPLICATION` `UNDER KLU ORDER WITH A TYPED COPY`
`Exhibit P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.01.2020` `SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 5681` `OF 2024 DATED 14.02.2024`
`Exhibit P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT DATED 29.06.2024 BEARING NO. A9-` `874305/2024`
`Exhibit P9`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KERALA STATE` `REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTER BEARING` `NO. A-172/2015/KSREC/004449/23 DATED` `14.07.2023`
`RESPONDENT ANNEXURES`
`ANNEXURE R2(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.04.2016`
`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`

¶60

2025:KER:20328

¶61

¶62

WP(C)No.27368 of 2024

¶63

Exhibit P10A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.03.2025 BEARING
NO.RDOMVP/2306-2024-A9

¶64

Exhibit P11A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE
COURT IN W.P.(C) NO. 12655 OF 2020 DATED
26.06.2020

Firoz v.a., S/O Abdul Latheef, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz v.a., S/O Abdul Latheef, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.G Mathew, Vs District Collector, Alappuzha

Manju G, W/O Santhosh, Vs District Collector

Sunny Mathew Vs the Palakkad Municipality

Anoop T.I., Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Ayisha Hannath, Vs the Authorised Officer Under the Paddy Land and Wet Land Act

R.Vijayan, Vs State of Kerala