Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45388
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
RIA GEORGE – Respondent
WA NO. 1364 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO.17691 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JAFFER KHAN
For the Respondents: DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM, SRI.SANTHARAM.P, SMT.MARY BEENA
Land assigned under the Kerala Land Reforms Act can be utilized for alternative purposes as long as statutory requirements are met without compromising public interest.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Land Reforms Act, Sections 81 and 87 - Land use for different purposes - The court reaffirmed that there's no prohibition against using assigned agricultural land under the Act for other purposes, provided public interest is upheld. It referenced precedents to bolster this position. (Paras 2, 5, 6)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court directed the Panchayat to reconsider a building permit application based on relevant statutory requirements, while ensuring compliance with the land reform provisions. (Par 2)
Facts of the case:
The case revolves around a challenge to the Panchayat's refusal to permit construction on plantation land, with relevant legal provisions from the Kerala Land Reforms Act scrutinized for applicability.
Findings of Court:
The judgment set aside the prior communication disallowing construction and instructed the authorities to revisit the building permit application, subject to statutory compliance.
Issues: The pertinent issues include whether the land can be used for purposes beyond its assignment and how the relevant law applies to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the interpretation of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, asserting that exemptions provided under the Act accommodate varied land uses, affirming the necessity to consider prior judicial decisions. (Paras 5, 6)
Result: Writ appeal disposed of, allowing for the reconsideration of the building permit application.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. directions issued to the panchayat regarding permit. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. overlap of land reform provisions discussed. (Para 4) |
| 3. land assignments can have different permissible uses. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT AMIT RAWAL, J .
Learned Single Bench, while considering the following prayers of the first respondent - writ petitioner challenging the action of the Panchayath in rejecting permission for raising the construction on a land being used for plantation, measuring 1.2 Acres, has disposed of the writ petition by issuing directions to the Panchayath to take a call in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court inMathew K.Jacob and another v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority ( 2018 (5) KHC 487 ) as well asKinallur Rock Sand (M/s.) v. State of Kerala and others ( 2021 (2) KLT 351 ):
“(i) To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to quash Ext.P7 order issued by the Secretary, Edavaka Grama Panchayat.
(ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus; or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Edavaka Grama Panchayat to accept the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit afresh and issue building permit on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner.
(iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus; or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Village Officer, Edavaka Village to verify the veracity and status of the property owned by the petitioner after hearing the petitioner and sent a report in this regard for enabling the Edavaka Grama Panchayat to issue building permit in favour of the petitioner (iv) To grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Operative part of the aforementioned judgment reads as under:
“5. The question whether a land assigned under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act can be used for purposes other than for which the land was assigned came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Mathew K.Jacob and another v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority [2018 (5) KHC 487]. This Court held that the provisions of the will have to be given effect to without affecting the public interest intended to be protected by conferring exemption to various categories of land mentioned in Section
81.
6. The issue was again considered by this Court inKinallur Rock Sand (M/s.) v. State of Kerala and others [ 2021 (2) KLT 351 ]. This Court held that there is no prohibition in using an exempted land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act for a different purpose and such conditions cannot be a reason to decline permission for using the land for a different purpose.
In view of the law settled as per the above judgments of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to relief. Ext.P7 communication is therefore set aside. Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to consider the Building Permit application of the petitioner and grant Building Permit to the petitioner, if the petitioner satisfies all other statutory requirements.”
3. The only apprehension expressed on behalf of the State of Kerala is that, under the Kerala Land Reforms Act , any person can hold innumerable area of the land without there being any ceiling, but in case any steps are being taken to violate the same, option with the Taluk Survey is to initiate the ceiling proceedings is provided under Section 87 of the Act. The same reads as under:
“87. Excess land obtained by gift, etc., to be surrendered.
- (1) Where any person acquires any land after the date notified under Section 83 by gift, purchase, mortgage with possession, lease, surrender or any other kind of transfer inter vives or by bequest or inheritance or otherwise and in consequence thereof, the total extent of land owned or held by such person exceeds the ceiling area, such excess shall be surrendered to such authority as may be prescribed.
Explanation I - Where any land is exempted by o
