HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T. R. Ravi, J
SAYED ABDULLAKOYA K P V – Appellant
Versus
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP – Respondent
WP(C) 9280/2022
Diversion - Land Use - Laccadive, Minicoy and Ammindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulations, 1965 - Sections 20(1), 20(4), 20(5) - The court found procedural improprieties in the administrative actions regarding land diversion, emphasizing that proper procedural compliance is essential when making decisions affecting land use.
Fact of the Case:
The case revolves around challenges to orders from the District Collector, Lakshadweep, refusing permission for land diversion under the 1965 Regulations. Petitioners, who hold Pandaram lands, claim improper procedural compliance in the rejection of their requests for construction permits.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the administrators failed to follow required procedures and did not adequately assess the status of lands designated as 'diversion' versus 'improvement'. The cases were allowed due to these procedural oversights.
Issues: The primary issues involved whether the administrative authority followed correct procedures for granting or denying land diversion permissions and the classifications of land-use changes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court stated that if a law mandates a certain procedure, it must be strictly followed. Procedural impropriety was pivotal in deciding the case.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed, and the orders of the District Collector were set aside for non-compliance with procedural requirements.
JUDGMENT
Similar issues arise in these writ petitions and hence they are heard and disposed of together. In WP(C) Nos.10804 & 10677 of 2022, orders issued by the District Collector, Lakshadweep Administration refusing to grant permission for diversion under Section 20(1) of the Laccadive, Minicoy and Ammindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulations 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1965 Regulations”) are under challenge. Petitioners are holders of Pandaram lands. The petitioner in WP(C) No.10804/2022 has raised an additional claim on the basis of a registered document. He had requested for permission to construct a new house and obtained permission for diversion. He is aggrieved by a show cause notice issued to him under Section 20(4) of the 1965 Regulation. The petitioners in WP(C) No.9280 of 2022 have challenged the notice issued under Section 20(4) of the 1965 Regulations stating that they have made constructions in Pandaram lands in the Bangaram Island without getting permission for diversion.
2. The basis of the action initiated by the Administration is that the Pandaram lands can be utlised only for agricultural purposes and any construction made thereon would amount to a diversion. The counsel on either side advanced arguments based on the nature of holdings in the Lakshadweep Islands. It is submitted that in the Lakshadweep Islands, the properties are held either as Janman lands or as cowldars who are holding Pandaram land on lease. Pandaram land as defined under the 1965 Regulation are lands over which the Government has proprietory rights. However, it may not be necessary to go into the merits of the contentions, if the challenge raised against the orders on the ground of non-compliance with procedural requirements is answered. Section 20 of the 1965 Regulations reads thus:
“20. Diversion of land (1) If any person holding land for any purpose wishes to divert such land or any part thereof to any purpose, he shall apply for permission to the competent authority who may, subject to the provisions of this section and to the rules made under this Regulation, refuse permission or grant it on such conditions as may think fit.
(2) Permission to divert as aforesaid may be refused by the competent authority only on the ground that the diversion is likely to cause a public nuisance or that it is not interest of the general public or that the holder is unable or unwilling to comply with the conditions that may be imposed under sub-section (3).
(3) Conditions may be imposed on diversion for the purpose of securing the public health, safety and convenience, and in the case of land which is to be used as building sites, for the purpose of securing in addition that the dimension, arrangement and accessibility of the sites are adequate for the health and convenience of occupiers or are suitable to the locality, but not for any other purpose.
(4) If any land has been diverted without permission by the holder or by any other person with or without the consent of the holder, the competent authority, on receiving information thereof, may impose on the person responsible for the diversion a penalty not exceeding one hundred rupees, and may proceed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) as if an application for permission to divert has been made.
(5) If any land has been diverted in contravention of an order passed or of a condition imposed under any of the foregoing sub-sections, the competent authority may- (a) Serve a notice on the person responsible for such contravention directing him, within a reasonable period to be started in the notice, to use the land for its original purpose or to observe the condition; and such notice may require such person to remove any structure, to fill up any excavation, or to take such other steps as may be required in order that the land may be used for its original purpose, or that the condition may be satisfied; and (b) Also impose on such person a penalty not exceeding one hundred
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.