High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-12-02Petition allowed with directions directing LLMC...

K. C. Sahadevan v. Palakkad Municipality

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.24546 OF 2017(P)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Hon. Justice Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2019-12-02
Court Decision / Holding: This writ petition is thus ordered. The LLMC is directed to take up Ext.P7 and issue appropriate orders thereon, adverting to the report filed before the Court, not later than two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is free to approach the Panchayat if favorable Ext.P7 orders are obtained, to issue a Section 67 purchase notice under the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act; the competent Municipality authority must consider and decide the same within the statutory period. If the purchase notice is rejected or not considered within the statutory period, the Secretary of the Municipality is obligated to consider the petitioner’s building-permit application de hors the DTP Scheme within one month after expiry of the statutory period.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed with directions directing LLMC to decide Ext.P7 within two months; liberty to approach Panchayat for a Section 67 notice; if notice rejected or not timely considered, Municipality to decide building-permit application de hors the DTP Scheme within one month after the statutory period.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.C. Sahadevan S/O. Chami, aged 66 years, Century House, 32/327, East Vennakkara, Nurani P.O., Palakkad-678004

Respondents

Palakkad Municipality represented by its Secretary, Municipal Office, Palakkad-678001
The Secretary, Palakkad Municipality, Municipal Office, Palakkad-678001
The District Town Planner Office of the Town Planner, Civil Station, Palakkad-678001
The Local Level Monitoring Committee for Palakkad Municipality, represented by its Convenor, the Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Palakkad-678001
The Revenue Divisional Officer Office of the R.D.O., Palakkad-678001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Mansoor B.H.
• Sri. Janet Job

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. P.S. Appu
• Government Pleader A.R. Nimod
• Government Pleader Smt. T.C. Suresh Menon

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, K. C. Sahadevan, challenges Ext.P6, the Palakkad Municipality Secretary’s order rejecting his building-permit application on the ground that the subject property lies within the Agricultural Zone and because a road-widening proposal under the District Town Planner (DTP) scheme is pending. He asserts that though the property is recorded as a “paddy land” in the Local Level Monitoring Committee’s Data Bank under the Paddy Land Act, it had been converted before 2008, and its Data Bank inclusion is therefore erroneous. He has filed Ext.P7 before the LLMC seeking deletion of the property from the Data Bank; a report placed on record by the Government Pleader indicates the LLMC has found that the property is liable to be excluded. The petitioner seeks a direction to the LLMC to finally decide Ext.P7 so that he can issue a purchase notice under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act to acquire the land for public purposes. The Municipality and the State respondents contend Ext.P6 is indefensible since the area remains in an Agricultural Zone and road-widening is proposed. The Court notes the land still appears as paddy land in the Data Bank but observes that deletion would render the DTP zoning irrelevant if conversion occurred prior to the Paddy Land Act. It directs the LLMC to consider Ext.P7 expeditiously, not later than two months, and allows the petitioner to pursue a Section 67 purchase notice; if the purchase notice is rejected or not timely considered, the Municipality must decide the building-permit application de hors the DTP scheme within one month after the statutory period. The petition is ordered with these directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Paddy Land Wetland Act (Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wetland Act)Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, Section 67

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P6 is unsustainable because the subject property belongs to a converted land and its Data Bank entry under the Paddy Land Act should be deletion-prone; Ext.P7 before the LLMC should be allowed to delete the land so that he may exercise his statutory right to issue a Section 67 purchase notice under the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act. He argues that deletion would neutralize the Agricultural Zone designation in the DTP Scheme for his land, enabling a lawful acquisition path for public purposes.

Contentions of Respondents

The Municipality and the State respondents contend Ext.P6 is indefensible since the land remains in an Agricultural Zone and the road in front is proposed to be widened under the DTP Scheme. They submit that the petitioner must first get the Data Bank entries corrected via Ext.P7, and only then can the writ petition be maintained. The Senior Government Pleader adds that, while deletion of the Data Bank entry would help, the petitioner must still comply with DTP Scheme requirements pending any order on Ext.P7.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
District Town Planner, Malappuram and Others v. Vinod and Others	2019 (3) KHC 673	Positive	Cited as authority that a landowner may pursue a Section 67 purchase notice under the KTC Act when land under a DTP scheme is involved; relied upon by the Court to justify purchase-notice route.
Regional Town Planner & Another v. Muhammed Rasheed & Others	2019 (3) KHC 989	Positive	Cited to support the availability and procedural viability of obtaining a purchase notice under Section 67 in the context of DTP scheme and related land matters.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K. C. Sahadevan v. Palakkad Municipality and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.24546 OF 2017(P)** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **K.C.SAHADEVAN** **S/O.CHAMI, AGED 66 YEARS, CENTURY HOUSE, 32/327,EAST VENNAKKARA, NURANI P.O., PALAKKAD-678004.** ## **BY ADVS.** **SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. SMT. JANET JOB** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678001.** - **2 THE SECRETARY THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,PALAKKAD678001.** - **3 THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNER, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD678001.** - **4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678001.** - **5 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE R.D.O., PALAKKAD-678001.** - **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.APPU** - **R1, R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.NIMOD R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON** - **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** - **02.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.24546 OF 2017** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** **(Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2019)** The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P6 proceedings of the Secretary of the respondent Municipality rejecting his application for Building Permit on the ground that the property in question is included within the “Agricultural Zone” and also because there is a pending proposal for widening of the road in front of it, as per the DTP Scheme applicable to the said Municipality. 2. The petitioner asserts that the property in question, though included as a “paddy land” in the Data Bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC for short) under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of the Paddy Land Wetland Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Paddy Land Act” for short), it has been converted much prior to the year 2008 and therefore that its inclusion in the Data Bank is **WP(C).No.24546 OF 2017** **3** in error. The petitioner, therefore, says that he has preferred Ext.P7 application before the LLMC for deletion of the property from the Data Bank and that a report has now been placed on record by the learned Government Pleader along with a memo, dated 21/10/17, wherein the said committee has clearly found that the property is liable to be excluded from the Data Bank. 3. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the LLMC be directed to issue final orders on Ext.P7, so as to enable him to approach the Municipality with a purchase notice under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, since it has been declared by this Court **District Town Planner, Malappuram and Others v. Vinod and Others** [2019 (3) KHC 673] **and Regional Town Planner & Another v. Muhammed Rasheed & Others** [2019 (3) KHC 989]; that when a land is sought to be acquired compulsory for the purpose of a public cause under the DTP Scheme, the owner of such a land obtain a right to make such a **WP(C).No.24546 OF 2017** **4** purchase notice statutorily. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality submits that Ext.P6 is irreproachable, since the area where the petitioner's property is situated is included in the “Agricultural Zone” and also because the road in front of it is now sought to be widened under the DTP Scheme. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed. 5. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.Rajasekharan Nair, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submits that as long as the petitioner's property is included as a “paddy land” in the Data Bank prepared by the LLMC, he will have to comply with the requirements of the zoning requirements under the DTP Scheme; and adds that it is only if necessary orders are issued on Ext.P7 in favour of the petitioner can be maintain this writ petition. He thus prays that this writ petition be dismissed. **WP(C).No.24546 OF 2017** **5** 6. When I take note of the afore submissions, it is without doubt that the petitioner's property presently remains as a “paddy land” under the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of the paddy land Act; and therefore that the stand of the Municipality faulted. However, if the petitioner is able to have his property deleted from the Data Bank, then the mere fact that the area has been designated as an “Agricultural Zone” in the DTP Scheme would be of no relevance, because if the land is found to be converted even prior to the coming into force of the Paddy Land Act, then it cannot be put to agricultural use, even if the zone is so described in the DTP Scheme. Consequently, the 4[th] respondent- LLMC will be obligated to take up Ext.P7 and issue appropriate orders thereon, adverting to the afore mentioned report of its, filed before this Court, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than 2 months from the date of receipt of a **WP(C).No.24546 OF 2017** **6** copy of this judgment. Axiomatically, I leave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Panchayat, if he is able to obtain favorable orders on Ext.P7 application from the LLMC and to then move a Section 67 purchase notice under the provisions of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, before its competent Authority immediately thereafter. Ones the petitioner moves such a purchase notice, the competent Authority of the Municipality will be obligated to consider the same and issue appropriate orders thereon within the statutory period as provided under the said Act; but if for any reason, the purchase notice is rejected or is not considered by the competent Authority of the Municipality within the statutory period, then the Secretary of the Municipality will be obligated to consider the application of the petitioner for Building Permit _de hors_ the DTP Scheme and issue appropriate orders thereon, within a period of one month **WP(C).No.24546 OF 2017** **7** after the statutory period for consideration of the application to be made by the petitioner under Section 67 of the Act expires. This writ petition is thus ordered. **Sd/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** AJM **WP(C).No.24546 OF 2017** **8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1661/2013 OF S.R.O.PALAKKAD.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAD 2 VILLAGE.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2620/2014 OF S.R.O.PALAKKAD.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAD 2 VILLAGE.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAD 2 VILLAGE.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.BA/246/1718/E5 DATED 05-07-2017.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 16-072017.** - **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** **AJM //TRUE COPY// CA TO JUDGE**