Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Karuvanthala Hotels & Resorts Private ... vs The Village Officer on 28 September, 2018

Author: Shaji P.Chaly

Bench: Shaji P.Chaly

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

      FRIDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 6TH ASWINA, 1940

                          WP(C).No. 16089 of 2018


PETITIONER/S:

                KARUVANTHALA HOTELS & RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED
                THOIKAVU P.O, PIN 680 513,VENKITANGU VILLAGE,
                CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT
                REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MADHAVAN,
                S/O. KANATTU KARTHIYAYANI AMMA,AGED 79 YEARS.

                BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ


RESPONDENT/S:
       1      THE VILLAGE OFFICER
              VENKINTANGU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 014.

      2         THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                PAVARATTY POLICE STATION
                THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 507.

      3         THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
                VENKITANGU,REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
                AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,VENKITANGU,
                THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 014.

      4         THE SUB COLLECTOR
                THRISSUR, THRISSUR DIUSTRICT- 680 001.

                BY   GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.DILIP


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
      28.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No. 16089 of 2018
                                         2

                                      JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

"1. Issue a writ of memorandum or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the first and second respondents and their subordinate officers not to interfere in the work of petitioner in the property covered by exhibit P1 order including deposit of ordinary earth.
2. Declare that no permission is required from any of the respondents to deposit ordinary earth in and around the property of petitioner covered by exhibit P1 order for the purpose of gardening and other beautification work.
3. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ direction or order by call for the records leading to exhibit P1 order and set aside condition No.six in the order since the same is illegal and beyond jurisdiction of the first respondent."

2. From the pleadings put forth by the petitioner what I could gather is that, the properties belonging to the petitioner having an extent of 68.64 Ares, 4.46 Ares, 10.07 Ares 1.18 Ares and 32 Ares situate in Survey Nos. 62/5, 63/6, 64/16,64/15 and 64/13 were remaining as paddy field in the revenue records as well as in the BTR. WP(C).No. 16089 of 2018 3 There upon, application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order was filed before the 4th respondent and has secured Ext.P1 order permitting the petitioner to utilise the properties for different purposes other than paddy cultivation and agricultural operation. However, in Ext.P1 among other conditions, condition No.6 stipulates that, the conversion should be completed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Ext.P1 order is dated 7.8.2015. According to the petitioner, petitioner has filled up land and carried out the construction after securing building permits from the Venkitangu Grama Panchayath, evident from Exts.P5 and P6 dated 23.12.2010 and 27.3.2017. According to the petitioner, in accordance with Ext.P1, order petitioner could not fully utilise the same within the time frame fixed by the 4 th respondent as per Ext.P1 order and seeks appropriate directions to extent the time period contained under Ext.P1.

3. A statement is filed for and on behalf of respondents, WP(C).No. 16089 of 2018 4 wherein it is stated that, recently, complaints from local people were received by the Village Officer, Venkitangu over telephone that, petitioner is depositing red earth in the land. Thereupon, Village Officer visited the site and directed to stop the work as there are no KLU order for the present conversion, hence the conversion, now, attempted by the petitioner is unauthorised. It is also pointed out that, as per KLU Order dated 7.8.2015, there was a condition to complete the conversion work within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order, and since the time period fixed is over, presently the petitioner is not conferred with a KLU Order for conversion. So also it is submitted that, as per the 3 rd condition in Ext.P1 order, no water channel should be obstructed in the process. However, when the Village Officer visited the site, it is seen that, there is possibility of the petitioner filling the water channel also. Hence, the Village officer has directed the petitioner to stop the work. These are the background facts available before this Court to identify whether the petitioner is WP(C).No. 16089 of 2018 5 entitled to secure any relief as is sought for in the writ petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

5. It is evident from Ext.P1 that, the time period was fixed in Ext.P1 to complete the conversion work within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Apparently, the period granted under Ext.P1 has elapsed during the year 2015 itself. Therefore, if the petitioner was still aggrieved and could not utilize Ext.P1 order fully, petitioner had to necessarily approach the primary statutory authority, who is vested with powers under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, 1967, seeking extension of the time. Evidently, petitioner has not undertaken such a process. Therefore, it cannot be said that the action initiated by the Village Officer directing the petitioner to stop the filling up activities again is said to be bad. However, in view of securing of Ext.P1 order by the petitioner to fill up the entire extent of WP(C).No. 16089 of 2018 6 land covered by the survey numbers specified above, I think it is only appropriate that, petitioner is given an opportunity to approach the statutory authority by filing an application seeking extension of the time period fixed under Ext.P1.

6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to submit suitable application, as is specified above, before the 4th respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgmet, which shall be considered by the 4 th respondent, taking into account the ground realities and the directions contained in Ext.P1 order, and pass appropriate orders, at the earliest, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if required, after ensuring participation of the petitioner and all other interested persons.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE WP(C).No. 16089 of 2018 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7-8-2015 PASSED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.
      EXHIBIT P2          TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
                          HONOURABLE COURT DATED 1-2-2013 IN WPC
                          NO. 26544/2012

      EXHIBIT P3          TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF
                          PETITIONER

      EXHIBIT P4          TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS DATED 30-
                          04-2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

      EXHIBIT P5          TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED
                          23-12-2010 ISSUED BY THE VENKITANGU GRAMA
                          PANCHAYATH

      EXHIBIT P6          TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED
                          27-3-2017 ISSUED BY THE VENGITANGU GRAMA
                          PANCHAYATH.


      dlk/1/0/18