Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Litto Joseph, S/o Joseph – Appellant
Versus
Kerala State Electricity Board – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, who claims to be in possession and enjoyment of 16.47 Ares (40.68 cents) of Government Puramboke in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village from 14.05.2024, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent Range Forest Officer, Devikulam Range, to issue No Objection Certificate, forthwith to the 1st respondent Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Section, Rajakumari; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Board to provide approval for electricity connection to the building located in the said land forthwith.
2. The averments in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the writ petition regarding the possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land by the petitioner, read thus;
“1. Petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of 16.47 Ares (40.68 cents) of Government puramboke land in Survey No. 34/1 of 2nd respondent village office from 14.05.2024. A true copy of the BTR issued by the 2nd respondent dated nil is produced herewith and marked as Ext.P1. A true copy of the tax receipt dated 21.08.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent is produced herewith and marked as Ex
Writ of mandamus cannot compel action on unauthorized constructions in protected areas without requisite permissions, confirming the necessity for compliance with statutory duties.
The court upheld that construction permits are mandatory and necessitated an inquiry into the petitioner's property title under the KDH Act before addressing eviction disputes.
Judicial directions on land assignment must be within the scope of the writ petition, and any extraneous observations cannot be upheld.
Point of law: Land cannot be utilized for any other purpose, except for grazing cattle as ‘mandabayalu’ and no change of classification of the land in Sy.No.74/3 is for ‘mandabayalu’ into ‘assessed w....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a reasonable opportunity for the parties to present their case.
The main legal point established is the importance of following due process of law and the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in land dispute cases.
The court upheld the principle that claims to ownership over lands designated as reserved forest cannot be established without following lawful de-reservation processes.
Permits under forest conservation laws must be obtained prior to any construction or use of land designated as forest or jungle.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
