High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2015-09-01Disposed of

P. C. Ravi Varma Raja v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 20146 of 2010 (P)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. V. Ramakrishna Pillai
Judgment Date: 2015-09-01
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of directing the respondents to grant a no-objection certificate to the petitioner if the certificate is otherwise in order. However, the grant of the NOC will not preclude the state from acquiring land in the future if required for port development.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. C. Ravi Varma Raja

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, Department of Ports, Thiruvananthapuram
The Port Officer, Beypore Port, Kozhikode
The Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Kozhikode
The Village Officer, Beypore, Kozhikode
The Beypore Panchayat represented by its Secretary
The Kozhikode Corporation represented by its Secretary (Addl. R6)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V. V. Surendran
• Sri. P. A. Harish
• Smt. Resmi Nandanam

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K. K. Saidalavi (Senior Government Pleader)
• Sri P. V. Kunhikrishnan
• Sri K. D. Babu (Senior Counsel)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the State and port authorities’ insistence on obtaining a no-objection certificate (NOC) before granting a development permit for lands adjacent to Beypore port, and seeks a direction against pressing for further land acquisition before effectively utilizing lands already under state control. The petitioner, P. C. Ravi Varma Raja, contends that acquisitions for Beypore port over four decades ago have left vast tracts idle, and that insisting on an NOC delays development. He points out that some acquired lands have been leased to Steel Industries Kerala Ltd., leases not renewed, and that development near the port has been stalled due to the stance of respondents 2 and 5. The respondents argue that additional lands adjacent to the already acquired parcels are necessary to realize the port’s development plan, potentially under public-private participation, and that the present lands lack sufficient scope for the project; hence, NOC issuance is withheld to safeguard future needs. The court cites Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999) and Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra (2005) to illustrate that permits cannot be denied on speculative future acquisitions or obsolete schemes. Ultimately, the court disposes the writ by directing grant of an NOC if the proposal is otherwise in order, while keeping open the possibility of future acquisitions if required for development.

Provisions of Law Cited

Right to Information Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner challenges the respondents’ insistence on obtaining a no-objection certificate before granting a development permit for lands near Beypore port, and seeks a direction not to press for further land acquisition pending utilization of lands already under state control. The petitioner argues that land acquired decades ago has remained idle and that requiring a NOC stalls development. He contends that development proposals remain only as proposals, and permitting construction should not be conditioned on future acquisitions. Citing Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999) and Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra (2005) to argue that refusal to grant permits on future land-use proposals violates constitutional rights; a direction to grant NOC if otherwise in order is warranted.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/Ports Department contends that additional lands adjacent to the already acquired land are required to realize Beypore port development, possibly with public-private participation. It argues that the current land is insufficient and a NOC is withheld to safeguard future need; it explains that if the port project proceeds, acquisitions would be carried out. The respondents assert the petition fails on grounds of public interest and the need to ensure proper development.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Padmini v. State of Kerala	1999 (3) KLT 465	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that a building permit should not be refused merely because there is a proposal to acquire land in the future.
Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra	[(2005) SCC 222]	Positive	Cited to support that refusing to grant permits relying on obsolete DTP schemes violates constitutional provisions.

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 P. C. Ravi Varma Raja v. State of Kerala and others 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 A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI** **TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/10TH BHADRA, 1937** ## **WP(C).No. 20146 of 2010 (P)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): --------------------------** **P.C. RAVI VARMA RAJA, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 86 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHIYA KOVILAKAM, BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE.** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN, SRI.P.A.HARISH, SMT.RESMI NANDANAN.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PORTS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.** **2. THE PORT OFFICER, BEYPORE PORT, KOZHIKODE-673 015.** **3. THE TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-20.** **4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE-673 015.** **5. THE BEYPORE PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE-673 015.** ## **WP(C).No. 20146 of 2010 (P)** ## ***** _**ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED**_ **6. THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, BEACH ROAD, CALICUT-673 032.** *** IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R6 AS PER ORDER DATED 15/06/2011 IN I.A. NO.9078/2011.** **R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.K. SAIDALAVI. R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN. ADDL. R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.D. BABU, SC.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **WP(C).No. 20146 of 2010 (P)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXT.P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ANSWERS SUPPLIED BY RESPONDENT 2. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ANSWERS SUPPLIED BY RESPONDENT 5. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE LETTER.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **rs.** ## **A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.** = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.20146 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1[st] day of September, 2015 ## **JUDGMENT** The writ petition is filed for a direction to the 5[th] respondent not to insist for a no objection certificate before granting development permit to lands lying near the Beypore port and also for a direction to the 2[nd] respondent not to acquire further land without effectively utilising the lands which are already in their possession. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of respondents 2 and 5 not to give development permits to any land situated near the Beypore port without obtaining a no objection certificate from the 2[nd] respondent. Respondents 2 and 5 seem to be insisting for a no objection certificate under the guise that those lands may be required for future development of the port. 3. The petitioner alleges that the 2[nd] respondent had acquired vast extent of land more than 40 years ago for the development of the Beypore port and the same is lying vacant. WP(C)20146/10 **-:2:-** The petitioner further alleges that a further extent of land so acquired has been leased out to M/s.Steel Industries Kerala Ltd., and the lease had already expired. However, it has not been renewed. The petitioner further alleges that the insistence of a no objection certificate without effectively using the land in their possession is unjustifiable. The petitioner points out that for several years, the lands near the port is lying without any development due to the stand of the respondents 2 and 5. According to him, such a stand is illegal and unreasonable. It is with this background, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2[nd] respondent, it was contended that the petitioner is having a large extent of land in Beypore village and out of this, a portion of land was acquired for developing Beypore port in the year 1996. According to the 2[nd] respondent this acquired land is not sufficient for the development proposal putforth and, therefore, among other lands adjacent to the land already acquired was proposed to be taken. As such, the land in R.S No.85 was also to be acquired for the said purpose. They further contended that the Government is under active consideration to develop WP(C)20146/10 ## **-:3:-** Beypore port into a major port under public and private participation. 5. It was further contended that the land now available with the department would not be sufficient for developing the Beypore port proposed by the Government. The Department of Ports would have to acquire land adjacent to the already acquired land if the development proposal materialises. At this juncture, the office of the second respondent is not issuing no objection certificate for any construction activities in the land identified for the development. They stated that if the proposal for developing Beypore port was fully approved, the whole area around the port, including the petitioner's property and other adjacent lands, would have to be acquired and for this, proposals have already been forwarded to the Government. Therefore, they prayed for a dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Arguments have been heard. 7. The petitioner points out that originally acquisition for the purpose of the port was made more than 40 years ago and now by insisting for a no objection certificate by the respondents has virtually stalled the development activities in this area. The WP(C)20146/10 **-:4:-** petitioner further points out that there is no justification in not permitting development activities in the area for more than 40 years under the guise that the area is required for future development. 8. There cannot be any quarrel against the proposition that the respondents are free to acquire any property if they need property for development. As it appears that no steps have been initiated for acquisition proceedings, the rights of the petitioner cannot be held at bay for the reason that the property may be needed for the port at one point of time. 9. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the development of the port has so far remained as a mere proposal and it has not been implemented. In this Connection, the learned counsel invited my attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court in **Padmini** v. **State of Kerala** [1999 (3) KLT 465] wherein it was held that no building permit can be refused to any person because there is a proposal to acquire the land in future. 10. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in **Raju S. Jethmalani** v. **State of Maharastra** [(2005) WP(C)20146/10 **-:5:-** 11 SCC 222] wherein it was held that refusing to grant permits relying on obsolete DTP schemes is a clear violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to grant no objection certificate to the petitioner if the same is otherwise in order. However, the grant of the no objection certificate will not stand in the way of the respondents in acquiring the property if it is required in future. Sd/- **A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE** krj