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

2022 Supreme(Ker) 366

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
VASU KALLAYI S/O LATE GOVINDAN – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 18619 of 2020
Decided On : 28-06-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: R. SURENDRAN, S. MAYUKHA.
For the Respondents: RAJAN VISHNURAJ, V. HARISH, VIDYA KURIAKOSE.

Point of Law: Conversion of land - Commercial building - An order passed under Section 27A can be cancelled only in certain conditions mentioned in Section 27A(11).

Headnote:

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 5(4)(i) - Non-resident Indian-commercial building-property abuts a thodu - Cancellation of order passed under Section 27A of Act - Classification of land as Nanja - Ignorance of law is not an excuse.

Finding of the Court:

A bare reading of Section 27A(11) of the Act, 2008 itself will show that an order passed under Section 27A can be cancelled only in certain conditions mentioned in Section 27A(11). Admittedly, there is no such violation of the conditions. If that is the case, Ext.P12 order is unsustainable in law. The 2nd respondent being a statutory authority should know the law and the dictum laid down by this Court.

Result: Writ Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

1. Ignorance of law and ignorance of the development of law through the judgments of the constitutional Courts are the main reasons for the accumulation of cases before this Court in the jurisdiction relating to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short “Act 2008”). The present case is a classic example of the same. A non-resident Indian who invested his hard earned money in Kerala is behind the red tape file of the respondents for the last two years to get clearance from the Act 2008. As per the Act 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officers are, in effect quasi judicial authorities. They should be aware of the laws and the decisions of this Court which interpret those laws. The ignorance of law and misinterpretation of the judgments of this Court leads to several illegal orders by the Revenue Divisional Officers, who are the competent authority as per the Act, 2008, this in turn leads to unnecessary litigations before this court. Therefore, the 1st respondent should take appropriate steps to see that the Revenue Divisional Officers invoking powers under the Act, 2008 are doing their quasi judicial duties in accordance with law. If necessary, sufficient training should also be given to them regularly in consultation with the Advocate General, so that such things will not happen in the future.

2. The short facts of the present case are as follows: The petitioner was a non-resident Indian, who worked hard for his livelihood abroad. He decided to invest his hard earned money in his hometown/village. The petitioner purchased 5.86 Ares of land situated in R.S. No. 293/8A1 of Kolavallur Village as per the sale deed dated 16.7.1993 registered as document No. 599 of 1993 of SRO Kallikkandy. He also purchased the adjoining land having an extent of 3.03 Ares of land situated in R.S. No. 293/8A1 of Kolavallur Village as per registered document No. 671 of 1993 of SRO Kallikkandy. Ext.P1 is the possession certificate dated 17.8.2020 issued by the 4th respondent-Village Officer. As per the village records and title deeds of the properties, the classification of the petitioner's properties is nanja.

3. The properties described in Ext.P1 were cultivated with coconut trees and there were other trees also. The petitioner's properties was not included in the data bank as per Section 5(4)(i) of the Act, 2008 either as paddy land or as wetland, even after studies were conducted by the authorities concerned.

4. The petitioner decided to construct a commercial building in his property and he wanted to develop the properties by filling the land with earth. For that purpose, the petitioner applied to the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer on 24.01.2019 under Section 27A(1) of the Act, 2008 as amended by the Act 29 of 2018. Necessary application fee was also remitted. The 2nd respondent forwarded the petitioner's application to the 4th respondent-Village Officer and he filed a report and sketch dated 5.3.2019 as evident by Ext.P2. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent considered the petitioner's application and Ext.P2 report of the 4th respondent. Consequently, the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P3 notice directed the petitioner to remit a total sum of Rs. 3,03,584/- under Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules 2008. Pursuant to Ext.P3 notice, the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs. 3,03,584/- as evident by Ext.P4 chalan receipt dated 19.3.2019.

5. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent passed Exhibit P5 order dated 30.3.2019 under Section 27A(2) and (3) of the Act, 2008, permitting the petitioner to develop the land and to undertake the construction of a commercial building not exceeding 5082.39 Sq. feet. He also directed the 3rd and 4th respondents (Tahsildar and Village Officer) to effect necessary changes in the Basic Tax Register as evident by Ext.P5 order. When the petitioner cut and removed some of the trees from his property to commence the development in terms of Ext.P5 orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top