Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 23323
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
DEVASIA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
WP(C)/20720/2020
TPM.Ibrahim Khan (Sr.), Smt.Anila Umesh, Sri.Jafar Khan Sr.G.P.
Certificates for land usage are contingent on prior approvals for any change from the original permitted use under the applicable land laws.
Headnote:
Land Use - Kerala Land Reforms Act - Section 81(e) - The court clarified the permissions required for changing the usage of land protected under the KLR Act, emphasizing that issuance of certificates is permissible only for the original purpose unless proper approvals are obtained.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought certificates for their property to construct a residential house. The respondents opposed this, citing the Kerala Land Reforms Act's stipulations that the land must be used solely as a tea estate without permission for any change of use.
Issues: Whether the petitioners can obtain certificates to facilitate construction on land subject to the restrictions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act without the necessary permissions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that issuance of certificates concerning land use is contingent upon the adherence to statutory requirements, specifically that any change in utilization requires prior approval.
Final Decision: The court granted the certificates with a restriction to the existing land use as a tea estate and directed the respondents to issue them within two weeks.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 – Tahsildar and Village Officer respectively, to issue to them the Location Sketch, Possession Certificate and such other necessary certificates, with respect to the property covered by Exts.P1 to P5A, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. I have heard Sri.TPM.Ibrahim Khan –
learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt. Anila Umesh appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Jafar Khan – learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.
3. The request of the petitioners, as made by their learned Senior Counsel – TPM.Ibrahim Khan, was opposed by Sri.Jafar Khan – learned Senior Government Pleader, saying that since the properties are concededly ones which are enjoying the protection of Section 81 (e) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (KLR Act), the petitioners cannot convert any portion thereof for any other purpose and is obligated to use it only as a “Tea Estate”, as it was originally postulated. He added that the attempt of the petitioners, as is admitted in the pleadings itself, is to construct a residential house in the property, which he asserts, is impermissible without obtaining the permission of the jurisdictional District Collector, under the provisions of the various applicable Rules and Regulations, including the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The learned Senior Government Pleader then added that it is well settled in law that, without such permission being obtained, the petitioners cannot seek any certificates, as have been prayed for by them.
4. Even when I hear the learned Senior Government Pleader as afore, the fact remains that if the petitioners continue to use property as an estate or as a plantation or for the purposes under which the exemption was granted to them as per Section 81 (e) of the KLR Act, it would not require any permission from any Authority for issuance of the certificates as sought for by them. It is only because the petitioners now say that they want to construct thereon that the learned Senior Government Pleader has raised the afore objection.
5. There is no doubt that the objections raised by the learned Senior Government Pleader is tenable because, unless the petitioners obtain the necessary sanction to use the property for other purposes, the certificates as requested by them cannot be allowed to be misused in any manner whatsoever.
6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that, even though the petitioners can be directed to be issued the certificates as sought for by them, it must contain an unequivocal endorsement that it is being issued only for the purpose of enabling them to use the property as a plantation or as an estate, as the case may be, and not for construction. These endorsements can, thereafter, be removed only when the petitioners obtain necessary clearance and consent from the competent Authorities, including for making construction or such other.
In the afore perspective, I order this writ petition and direct respondents 2 and 3 to accede to the request of the petitioners for issuance of Location Sketch and Possession Certificate with respect to the property owned by them covered by Exts.P1 to P5A title documents; however, with an endorsement as afore, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
I reiteratingly clarify that the petitioners are at liberty to approach any other competent Authority, including the jurisdictional District Collector, for using the property for other purposes, but they shall do so only after obtaining the necessary clearance and consent, under the ambit of the applicable Statutes and Regulations.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20720/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.413/2002 DATED 23.03.2002 OF SRO, PEERUMED RELATING TO THE PROPERTY OF 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED
