Kerala High Court
C.M.Shajidas vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024
2024:KER:83949
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024/17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 7174 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
C.M.SHAJIDAS,
AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O.MADHAVAN, CHEEROTH HOUSE, ANAYIKKAL,
KANIPAYOOR VILLAGE, P.O.PORKALEGAD,
THRISSUR - 680 517, SECRETARY,
ANAYIKKAL PADASEKHARA SAMITHI REG.NO.505/89,
ANAYIKKAL, KANIPAYOOR VILLAGE, P.O.PORKALEGAD,
THRISSUR - 680 517.
BY ADV P.K.SAJEEV
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE (P) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680 003.
3 THE SUB COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680 003.
4 SECRETARY, KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY,
KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR - 680 503.
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, KUNNAMKULAM,
THRISSUR - 680 503.
W.P.(C).No.7174 of 2020
2024:KER:83949
-2-
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, KANIPAYOOR,
THRISSUR - 680 517.
7 SINI BINEESH,
AGED 35 YEARS,
W/O.BINEESH AND D/O.RAJAN,
KODATHUR HOUSE, THEKKEPPURAM,
KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR - 680 503.
R1 TO 3,5 AND 6 - SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.7174 of 2020
2024:KER:83949
-3-
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024) The writ petition is preferred by Secretary of Anayikal Padasekhara Samithi challenging Ext.P1 permission granted by the District Collector and permitting the 7th respondent to construct a residential building in the property in Survey No.197/2 having an extent of 0.0239 Hectare in Kanipayoor Village.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the husband of the 7th respondent is in possession and ownership of 10 cents of property on the northern side of the Anayikal Padasekharam. The paddy cultivation is being conducted by Padasekhara Samithi for an extent of 100 Acres. This Samithi is having 80 members and the Executive Committee of the Samithi consists of 7 members. There was a paddy cultivation in the paddy field owned and possessed by one Mr.Sunillal having an extent of 2½ Acres, which is included in the above Padasekharam from which the 7 th respondent has purchased the property in dispute.
3. It is further contended that the property purchased by the husband of the 7th respondent was under paddy cultivation till W.P.(C).No.7174 of 2020 2024:KER:83949 -4- 2017 using the subsidy of the Government availed through the 4 th respondent. When the 7th respondent started construction of a residential building in the aforementioned 10 cents, the Padasekahra Samithi members filed complaints before respondents 4 to 6.
4. The 7th respondent obtained a building permit from the Municipality. On the basis of said building permit, she had started the construction of the basement. However, the 6 th respondent Village Officer issued a stop memo. In compliance with that the entire work had been stopped. Thereafter, the 7th respondent approached the 2nd respondent for resuming the work and completion of the construction of the house.
5. Accordingly, reports were obtained from 5th and 4th respondents. In the report submitted by the 5th and 6th respondents, it was stated that the property involved in this issue is part of Anakkal Paddy fields under the Kunnamkulam Municipality, and it is recorded as Nilam in data bank. UP to 2016- 17, it was reported, paddy cultivation was conducted in the property. On the northeast boundaries there are paddy fields, and on the west boundaries there exist water channels with water flow. It is also reported that the petitioner's husband purchased the W.P.(C).No.7174 of 2020 2024:KER:83949 -5- property in the year 2017. Without intimating the LLMC, he obtained permission under the PMAY Scheme. Thereafter, he excavated the property to facilitate the construction of the basement. In that connection, on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner Association, site visit was conducted, and a stop memo was issued by the Village Officer under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. On the enquiry by the LLMC, it was revealed that there were agricultural activities before 2 years. Due to non-maintenance of the road by the side, there occurred slight water logging and certain parts of the paddy field are filled with weeds, and in the rest of the portion agricultural activities are being conducted.
6. On the other hand, the 4 th respondent Secretary reported that, Sri.Bineesh belongs to BPL category, on considering his social as well as family status, he was included in the PMAY Scheme and a building permit was issued as per Order No.BA475/18-19. On the basis of such reports, directions were issued to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to adjudicate the issue. In compliance with the said direction, the Sub Divisional Magistrate conducted site inspection and submitted a report as per reference No.5 in the impugned order. It is reported that an extent of 0.3520 Hecters of land in W.P.(C).No.7174 of 2020 2024:KER:83949 -6- Survey No.179/2 of Kanippayyur Village at Anakkal is on the side of the road and on the south and west part of the property too many residential buildings are existing and on the sides of the said property further new constructions are started. By constructing a residential building on the said property, no adverse consequence will occur to the agricultural activity conducted 50 meters away from the plot. Moreover, the beneficiary of PMAY Scheme has no other property to construct a residential building. Under such circumstances the Sub Divisional Magistrate recommended in favour of the applicant. On the basis of such report submitted by the Sub Collector and in the light of the fact that data bank is not finalised, it was decided to grant permission to Bineesh, S/o.Rajan, Kodathur House in the property having an extent of 0.0230 Hecters in Survey No.197/2 of Kanippayyur Village.
7. Thereby it appears that the 2nd respondent District Collector has considered all aspects involved in the issue after obtaining sufficient reports from the competent authorities and taken a conscious decision.
8. Going by the averments, I am afraid about the competency of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P1, as the petitioner has not specifically averred his locus standi to approach this Court W.P.(C).No.7174 of 2020 2024:KER:83949 -7- by preferring this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. I am convinced of the background of the permission given by the District Collector to construct a residential building for a person included in the BPL category and a beneficiary under the PMAY Scheme.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ JUDGE ADS W.P.(C).No.7174 of 2020 2024:KER:83949 -8- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7174/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.B6-4982/2019 DATED 03.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6.