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

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 55884

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, J
RAFEEK ALIAS RAFEEK KUNJI – Appellant
Versus
THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE – Respondent
WP(C)/28138/2021



Advocates:
P.M.ZIRAJ, IRFAN ZIRAJ, O.B.NASSEER, DEEPAK RAJ, M.S.DILEEP, C.P.ROOPA

Pending applications for land use change do not prevent granting electricity connections necessary for agricultural activities.

Headnote:

Electricity - Writ Petition - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act - Sections Referenced: 27A - The court upheld the order allowing electricity connection, emphasizing no violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act as pending applications do not bar the supply necessary for agricultural activities.

Fact of the Case:

A writ petition was filed challenging the Additional District Magistrate's order allowing an electricity connection to a relative of the petitioner for a farm on paddy land which lacked necessary permissions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found merit in the ADM's order, noting inspections had been made and there were no legal barriers to supplying electricity necessary for agricultural pursuits.

Issues: Whether the electricity connection granted contravenes provisions concerning paddy land conversion without necessary approvals.

Ratio Decidendi: Pending applications regarding land use change do not impede the provision of electricity required for agriculture, as per the law.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Order Ext.P4 dated 23.11.2021 of the Additional District Magistrate allowing the electric connection to respondent No.3 by drawing 42 mtr. of LT Single phase OH line from the existing LT line in between post No.CK 21/21/3 and CK 21/21/4 after fixing post A to post B as per the sketch plan by rejecting the complaint of the petitioner has been challenged in the present Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner is alleged to be owner in possession of a property having extent of 18.80 Ares comprised in S.No.467/8 of Vazhakkulam Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk and had been paying tax to the concerned department which is evident from Ext.P1. The property of the petitioner is 'nilam' in the records of the Village and had left a portion of the property in front of the plot for ingress and egress. The third respondent is a relative of the petitioner who is also the owner of the property adjacent to the land of the petitioner comprised in S.No.467/9 which is classified as 'paddy land' in the revenue records and is about half a kilometre away from the property of the petitioner. He constructed a farm house without obtaining permission from the Panchayat and also submitted an application for getting electric connection, to the Kerala State Electricity Board. In the month of June 2021, officers of the Electricity Board inspected the property in question. It was reliably learnt that attempt was made to obtain the electric connection to an unauthorizedly constructed building in a paddy land without obtaining permission from the Panchayat. Petitioner and other local persons obstructed the action of the KSEB in allowing the laying of the electric connection to the property of the 3rd respondent by rejecting the objection Ext.P3.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the ADM has passed the order without noticing the fact that no permission has been obtained from any Authority for construction like licence or permit from the Panchayat or from the revenue record converting the paddy land into other land. The first respondent did not consider, that the residential house of the 3rd respondent is far away from the construction in the paddy field situated more than half km away from the shed for which the electric connection is being sought. No sight inspection on the property before passing of the order was conducted by the ADM neither any license as per the provisions of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008 has been obtained, though application is stated to be pending.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the third respondent submitted that the third respondent is running a small scale cattle farm and carrying on the agricultural activities more than two decades. Agricultural officer has already been approached for getting the information related to the land as per Ext.R3(b). Form 6 before the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer for change of nature of the land by remitting the requisite fee has been submitted as evident from Ext.R3(c). The third respondent is suffering from 80% of physical and mental disabilities as per the certificate Ext.R3(d). An application was also submitted to the concerned Station House Officer by registering an FIR in Crime No.21 of 2020 of Thadiyattaparamba Police Station on account of the physical assault.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that the connection is not going through the property of the petitioner and it is being supplied from the existing pole and existing LT line to the property of respondent No.3.

6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force or merit as the order of the ADM is based upon the inspection site and the site plan. The site plan Ext.P4 reveals that from CK-21/21/3, an electric line is being supplied to the property of respondent No.3 and from the same very pole it is being also supplied to CK- 21/21/4 i.e., existing LT line. There

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
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