SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Ker) 844

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
Kuriachan M.M. - Petitioner
Vs.
District Collector Civil Station, Kakkanad, Ernakulam 682 030 & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) Nos. 32992 of 2015, 1192 of 2016 & C.O.C. No. 1776 of 2015
Decided On : 18-03-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Smt. V.J. Ruby, Smt. V.K. Reeba
For the Respondents: Sri. Biju Meenattoor, Sri. T.R. Rajan, Sri. Peeyus A. Kottam

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities must provide notice of any revision of the data bank to affected land owners before taking any action against them.

Headnote:

reclamation - paddy land - Kerala Land Utilisation Order, Act 28 of 2008 - Section 3A - 10/10/2013 - building permit - vehicle owner - District Collector - Local Level Monitoring Committee

Fact of the Case:

The case involves the reclamation of a paddy land and the seizure of a vehicle used for construction on the land. The land owner challenged the inclusion of the land in the Draft Data Bank after obtaining a building permit and completing construction.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the vehicle owner and the land owner acted bona fide as the building permit was issued when the land was classified as converted land in the data bank. The Court held that ordering confiscation of the vehicle was illegal and unsustainable. The land owner was directed to apply for regularisation of the land, and the District Collector was instructed to release the vehicle to the vehicle owner and allow regularisation of the reclaimed portion for construction.

Issues: The issues involved the legality of the seizure of the vehicle, the inclusion of the land in the Draft Data Bank, and the regularisation of the reclaimed portion for construction.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the fact that the building permit was issued when the land was classified as converted land in the data bank, and the authorities failed to provide notice of the revision of the data bank to the land owner.

Final Decision: The impugned order in the writ petition was set aside, and the writ petitions were disposed of with directions to release the vehicle to the vehicle owner, allow regularisation of the reclaimed portion for construction, and permit the land owner to seek appropriate correction before the Local Level Monitoring Committee.

JUDGMENT :

These writ petitions are related to reclamation of a paddy land situated in Resurvey No.421/5 of Maradu Village.

2. W.P.(C).No.32992/2015 is filed by a contractor (hereinafter referred to as the “vehicle owner”) on account of seizure of his vehicle bearing registration No.KL-40-F-1336 for carrying out a construction in the aforesaid paddy land. W.P.(C).No.1192/2016 is filed by the land owner challenging inclusion of the land in the Draft Data Bank.

3. There are no disputes regarding certain facts stated hereunder:

Originally, the land was not included in the Data Bank prepared in the year 2010. The land owner applied before the Municipality for construction of a godown. The Municipality requested the Tahsildar to know about the status of the land. The Additional Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk by communication dated 06/07/2013, reported to the Municipality that though the land is classified as nilam in the village records, it now remains as converted land. The Municipality, thereafter, granted a building permit to the land owner. The building permit was issued on 30/07/2013. The land owner thereafter undertook construction of the godown.

4. However, the data bank has been revised subsequently. This revision was admittedly on 10/10/2013, after issuance of the building permit. The vehicle in question was seized on 27/12/2014. Proceedings were initiated against the vehicle owner and the District Collector ordered confiscation of the vehicle. The said order is under challenge in W.P. (C) No. 32992/2015.

5. The land owner filed the writ petition to correct the entry relating to her property. She has a case that at no point of time, the revision of the data bank has been brought to her notice.

6. There were many intervening orders passed by this Court during the course of the proceedings. The District Collector also filed report in W.P.(C).No.32992/2015. It is stated therein that in the revised data bank with effect from 10/10/2013 the above land is recorded as thanneer thadam reclaimed after 2008. However, in the previous data bank, the land was shown as nilam but reclaimed before 8 years.

7. The facts as remain now is that construction has been completed pursuant to the building permit issued by the Municipality. No action was taken by the authorities against the building while construction was in progress. The Municipality also issued occupancy certificate.

8. The issuance of permit cannot be faulted as such. The permit was issued at the time when in the data bank itself, the land was shown as converted land. No one has a case that at the time of issuing building permit, the land was included as paddy or wetland in the data bank. Therefore, the vehicle owner who provided his vehicle during contract work cannot be found fault with. It is to be noted when construction commenced in 2013, no notice was served on the land owner to stop the construction, stating that after the revision of the data bank, she cannot undertake construction. In such circumstances, ordering confiscation of the vehicle is illegal and unsustainable. It is apparent that Administration has to be blamed in this matter. Having caused to issue a building permit and having failed to put notice of revision of the data bank, they cannot now proceed against the persons, who acted bona fide.

9. As has been noted at no point of time the land owner was proceeded for illegal conversion and no attempt has been made for stopping construction. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the vehicle has to be released to the vehicle owner unconditionally. Therefore, the impugned order in the above writ petition is set aside.

10. So far as the relief sought for in W.P.(C).No.1192/2016 is concerned, it has to be noted that the land owner obtained the building permit and completed the construction based on the building permit. The Municipality also issued occupancy certificate. At the time of issuance of the building permit, the draft data bank would show that it was a converted land.










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top