Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 11TH MAGHA, WP(C) NO. 19012 OF 2015 PETITIONER: MUHAMMED ABUTHAHIR, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, VELUTHEDATH PALLIYALIL HOUSE, KODUMUNDA DESOM,PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679303, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MUHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 60 YEARS, VELUTHEDATH PALLIYALIL HOUSE, KODUMUNDA DESOM,PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679303 BY ADV SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED RESPONDENTS: 1 THE SECRETARY, MUTHUTHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
MUTHUTHALA, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD 679303, 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, CIVIL LANE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678001 3 PRINCIPLE AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, CIVIL LANE, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678001 4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER MUTHUTHALA PANCHAYATH,MUTHUTHALA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679303 5 VILLAGE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHUTHALA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD 679303 BY ADVS. SRI.R.SREEHARI SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.19012 of 2015 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: ⅰ) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction to Quash Ext. P2 and P5
order and grant permission to convert the land,
construct the house. ii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get permission to construct house as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Act- 2008. iii) To issue such other and further relief as this Honorable court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case, and
iv) Award costs to the petitioners. [SIC]
2. The petitioner purchased 11.20 cents of property in
survey No.63/2 for constructing a house for his family is the submission. But, the 1st respondent refused to accept the petitioner’s application saying that the description of the property in the title deed is described as nilam. The petitioner approached the 4th respondent as per Section 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008 [for short, ‘the Act 2008’]. Thereafter, the petitioner’s application was dismissed by the 3rd respondent. On 16.04.2014, petitioner approached before the District Collector by way of Appeal prescribed under the Act 2008. The 2 nd respondent dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the property in question is surrounded by paddy land. It is the contention of the petitioner that the above property is situated on the side of the public road and having number of coconut trees in the property. The petitioner submitted that, he is residing in a rented house and unless permission is granted for facilitating the petitioner to construct a house, there will be irreparable loss to him is the submission.
3. This Court perused the impugned orders.
Admittedly, the petitioner purchased the land after 12.08.2008. As per the petitioner’s own averment in the writ petition, he purchased the property in the year 2011. A Division Bench of this Court in Sabeena E.K and Others v. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others [2022(2) KHC 673] considered this point. It will be better to extract the relevant portion hereunder:
‘41. Taking into account the above aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the owner of the paddy land who is entitled to seek conversion or reclamation in contemplation of the provisions of Act, 2008, is the owner of the paddy land on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008 i.e.,
42. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the
decision rendered by the learned Single Judges in Thankachan, Yousuf Chalil and Sudheesh R. (supra) that a purchaser of a bit of paddy land after the coming into force of Act 2008 is not entitled to seek reclamation of the paddy land for construction of a residential building is the correct law, and the
judgment of the Division Bench in Yousuf Chalil v.
State of Kerala and others (supra) is not the correct law.’
4. In the light of the above principle, I think the
contention of the petitioner is unsustainable. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned orders. But, I make it clear that the petitioner can avail other alternative remedies in accordance with law, if he is advised so. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE Sbna/ APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19012/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF WRIT PETITION NO P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD 15/2/2014 P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONER DTD P4:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF WRIT PETITION NO P5:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 10/4/2015 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT P6:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY P7:-THE LOCATION MAP OF PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD 12/8/2011 P8:-TRUE COPY OF THE NOC SUBMITTED BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS P9:-COPY OF THE CERTIFIATE ISSUED BY THE PARUUTHUR VILLAGE OFFICER, DTD 17/8/2011