Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.49 seconds)
M/S.Arabian Legend Realtors Pvt.Ltd vs The Village Officer on 29 July, 2016 cites

Puthan Purakkal Joseph vs The Sub Collector on 15 July, 2013

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners purchased the above land and a further extent of 20.25 cents in Survey No.689/2 of the identical village by Exts.P1 to P4 sale deeds and started construction of a residential apartment complex based on a building permit issued to the prior owners, which was converted into the name of the petitioners and period extended till 2019. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the land, in 2 W.P.(C) No.17085 of 2016 - I which the construction is carried on is in Survey No.683/3, which even according to the Draft Data Bank published by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), as is evident from Ext.P14, is a converted land, which conversion was carried out 10 years prior, hence long before the introduction of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for brevity 'the Paddy Land Act'). The learned Senior Counsel would rely ondecisions of this Court in reported in Aboobacker v. Manjeri Municipality [2015(1) KLT 309], Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector [2015 (3) KLT 182], Issathul Islam Madrassa v. Keezhattoor Grama Panchayath [2015(3) KLT 344] as also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep [2015(1) KLT 984].
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 459 - K V Chandran - Full Document

The Revenue Divisional Officer vs Jalaja Dileep on 13 July, 2012

4. If any landholder has raised any structures or has been raising any structures under any valid building permit, either on the basis of any judicial 5 W.P.(C) No.17085 of 2016 - I directive issued prior to the rendering of Jalaja Dileep (supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, or based on the building permit issued by the authorities essentially going by the ratio of the judgments of this Court holding the field prior to Jalaja Dileep, those structures shall not be disturbed.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 418 - B M Joseph - Full Document

Aboobacker vs The Manjeri Municipality on 8 March, 2012

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners purchased the above land and a further extent of 20.25 cents in Survey No.689/2 of the identical village by Exts.P1 to P4 sale deeds and started construction of a residential apartment complex based on a building permit issued to the prior owners, which was converted into the name of the petitioners and period extended till 2019. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the land, in 2 W.P.(C) No.17085 of 2016 - I which the construction is carried on is in Survey No.683/3, which even according to the Draft Data Bank published by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), as is evident from Ext.P14, is a converted land, which conversion was carried out 10 years prior, hence long before the introduction of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for brevity 'the Paddy Land Act'). The learned Senior Counsel would rely ondecisions of this Court in reported in Aboobacker v. Manjeri Municipality [2015(1) KLT 309], Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector [2015 (3) KLT 182], Issathul Islam Madrassa v. Keezhattoor Grama Panchayath [2015(3) KLT 344] as also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep [2015(1) KLT 984].
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - C V Rehim - Full Document
1