Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 65764
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAJI P.CHALY, J
JOJO J.VELLUKUNNEL – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C)/33623/2017
ADV.SRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED ANZAR K.J, SRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY, SC.SRI. S. RANJITH, SC.
Administrative authorities must make timely decisions regarding land use based on municipal recommendations, ensuring adherence to legal frameworks.
Headnote:
Land - Property Disputes - Kerala Land Utilization Order - Municipal Authority Proceedings - Finalization of Land Assignment
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner owns a land parcel in Kottayam Municipality and sought to shift a non-existent canal on the property. The Municipality permitted construction of drainage and referred the matter to the Tahsildar for land assignment, which remains pending.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Tahsildar to review the Municipality's recommendation and reach a decision within three months, emphasizing adherence to legal processes.
Issues: Whether the Tahsildar is obliged to act on the Municipality's referral for land assignment and address the petitioner's concerns regarding the non-existent canal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that administrative authorities must follow due process when determining land use and assignment based on municipal recommendations.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with directions to finalize the matter within three months.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the owner of 1 Acre 15 cents of landed property situate in Re-Sy Nos.28, 28/1, 30 and 30/1 in Block No.21 of Muttambalam Village, Kottayam Taluk and within the Kottayam Municipality. According to the petitioner, petitioner has secured necessary orders from the RDO under the Kerala Land Utilization Order and the property even though was a paddy land, the same is utilized for different purposes. However, during the year 2013 petitioner came to know that, a small canal is passing through the property of the petitioner as “Nalithu Thodu”. But according to the petitioner, there is no thodu as such in existence in the property of the petitioner and it remains only in record. Thereby petitioner has submitted an application before the Kottayam Municipality to shift the non-existent thodu from the present place to the side of the property of the petitioner, which is according to the petitioner, more convenient for the flow of the water. Thereupon, the Municipality accorded permission to construct a drainage at the expense of the petitioner. Thereafter, Municipality forwarded its decision to the Tahsildar for appropriate action for assignment of land in favour of the petitioner and surrender of the newly constructed drainage, the same is pending consideration. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to attain finality to the issue raised by the petitioner.
2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. However, learned Special Government Pleader pointed out that, the reference made by the Kottayam Municipality to the Tahsildar will be considered by the Tahsildar in accordance with law and attain finality within a time frame.
4. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the recommendation forwarded by the 4th respondent Municipality in accordance with law and attain finality within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
