This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, delivered a detailed order in CrL.R.P. No.1357/2017 by Justice N. Nagareesh, concerning the validity of an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. regarding possession and control of Ma-Adanul Uloom Madrasa building at Kannamangalam, Vengara. The petitioners, Hamza Haji and Kunhimuhammed Haji (the B‑party/office bearers of the Wakf‑registered SSV Sangam) challenged the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tirur’s 10 August 2017 order, which dropped the Section 145 proceedings and advised the parties to seek civil remedies for title and possession. The Madrasa property, a Wakf asset, had witnessed a split in allegiance since 2015, with one faction occupying the Madrasa premises under a rival management. The petitioners argued that they and the Wakf deed holders hold title and possession and that, under Section 145(4), the SDM must assess who was in possession and, if eligible, restore possession pending final resolution of ownership. They relied on judgments Shameel v. Mohammed Ansari and Vinod v. State of Kerala as authorities for conducting a proper enquiry and declaring possession. The respondents countered that Section 145 does not apply; the dispute concerns ownership and Wakf matters, suggesting Section 147 IPC or Wakf mechanisms apply and that the SDM is not competent to adjudicate title. The court ultimately dismissed the revision petition, finding no merit and noting the absence of an ongoing threat to public peace, while directing civil action for title resolution.
WP(C).No.7426 of 2013(C) and connected cases (including WP(C).No.1518 of 2014 and WP(C).No.32051 of 2016) In the captioned writ petitions, Soumya Salas W/o Glancy Xavier challenges the non-joining of her as an Assistant Professor of Chemistry at St. Michael’s College, Cherthala, after she was included in a 2012 rank list and a vacancy arose following the retirement of a colleague. The petitions, including WP(C) No. 7426/2013 and connected matters, trace the sequence of events: the 2010 notification; the rank list (Rank No. 4) dated 29 July 2012; subsequent advertisements and the pendency of adjudication over the appointment of another candidate; post-2013, a fresh advertisement and a later appointment of James Manuel became controversial, with the University maintaining that he did not meet the qualifications and that the 2013 rank list had expired. The Court examined whether it could direct appointment notwithstanding expiry of the rank list. Relying on settled law that the validity of a rank list is time-bound, the court held that no direction for appointment could be issued after expiry, even if facts otherwise justify it. However, it directed the Government to consider arrears and related benefits from 3 November 2010 to 29 March 2012, to be computed within a month. The judgment disposed of WP(C) No. 7426/2013 with this direction, while dismissing WP(C) No. 1518/2014 and making the interim order in WP(C) No. 32051/2016 absolute for the purpose of payment of arrears and provident fund within three months.
Lead: WA 676/2020 (and connected Nos.) This is a batch judgment of the Kerala High Court delivering on WA Nos.676/2020 and connected cases concerning the retrospective operation of Section 42(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) as amended by the Kerala Finance Act, 2016 (Act 18/2016). The core dispute is whether Section 42(3) can revive time‑barred reassessments and, if so, to what extent, given the statutory limitations in KVAT Act (notably Section 25(1) and related timelines) and the self‑assessment framework under Sections 21–25. The court recognises the retrospective insertion of Section 42(3) from 1 April 2005 but holds that the “treated as pending” fiction cannot erase the express limitation in Section 25(1), and that Section 42(3) must operate with a reasonable period, harmonising KVAT provisions with constitutional principles. After surveying leading authorities (Ghanshyam Das, Ramdas Laxmidas, Vatika Township, Maruti Suzuki, etc.) and considering the Notes on Clauses and the Constitution (Amendment Act 2016), the bench concludes that retrospective operation can be legitimate but not to the point of creating absurdity or undermining certainty. Consequently, the batch writ appeals and connected revisions are dismissed, with the petitions disposed in terms consistent with the common judgment. The decision emphasizes time‑limits, certainty in tax law, and the balance between legislative change and vested rights.
Facts: The 1st petitioner Sasidharan Nair is the employer intending to commence a hardware shop. Petitioners 2 to 10 are headload workers engaged by the 1st petitioner for loading and unloading in the proposed establishment. The petitioners sought registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules and the 3rd respondent rejected these applications by Ext. P12. The petitioners challenged the decision by filing a writ petition under Article 226, with an appeal under Section 26(C) of the Rules; Ext. P3 records the appeal rejection. The petitioners’ counsel contended that the sole reason for rejection is that issuance of registration cards would reduce the employment of other headload workers in the area; they relied on the Division Bench decision in Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board v. Nishad M.B. and Others, 2022 (5) KHC 367, which held that reduction of employment cannot be a per se bar to registration under Rule 24A. The respondents urged that welfare considerations and local employment impacts justify the denial. After hearing both sides, the judge held that it would be just and proper to set aside Exts. P12 and P13 and remand the matter to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration of the registration applications for petitioners 2 to 10, in accordance with law and in light of Nishad’s dictum. The remand shall be completed within one month from receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of.
WP(C) No. 26691 of 2010 (J) This batch of writ petitions challenges the constitutional validity of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (the 2003 Act) and related ordinances, notifications, and rules concerning vesting of ecologically fragile lands in the State and their management by the Forest Department. The petitioners, Planters Forum (a private trust) and the second petitioner, Dr. Chummar Chandy, seek to strike down Section 3 (vesting of ecologically fragile lands in the Government) and related provisions, arguing lack of legislative competence, violations of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 300A, and repugnancy with Central laws. The respondents defend the Act as a legitimate exercise of the State’s power to protect ecologically fragile lands under List II/Concurrent List entries and argue it is in pursuance of Article 39(b) (directive principles) and Article 48A (forest protection). The court undertakes a thorough doctrinal and constitutional analysis, examining legislative competence, repugnancy under Article 254, presidential assent issues, and the Act’s relation to agrarian reform jurisprudence. It concludes that the 2003 Act is within the State’s constitutional competence and is not repugnant to Central enactments, upholding the Act’s validity while directing remedial action via Sec. 19 and related provisions for review of notifications. The matter is disposed with further direction to the Custodian to adjudicate pending Sec.19 petitions within time, and to proceed with matters under Sec.10/10A/10B as applicable.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 662 OF 2016 This is a criminal revision petition (CRL.REV.PET NO. 662 OF 2016) filed by the second accused, Babu s/o Gangadharan Pillai, challenging the conviction for an offence under Section 392 IPC and the consequent sentence. The prosecution case arose from an incident on 17.09.2006, where the second accused, a pillion rider on a motorcycle, allegedly snatched a gold chain from PW1 at Erattachira while she was waiting for a bus. The trial court convicted both accused under Section 392 IPC, sentencing them to 1½ years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, with default imprisonment. On appeal, the Sessions Court acquitted the first accused but affirmed the conviction and sentence of the second accused. The revision contends that the identity of the second accused was not properly established, as PW1 identified him at the dock without a test identification parade (TIP), relying on Kannan v. State of Kerala (1979). It also challenges the sufficiency of recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, arguing that corroboration is required beyond such a recovery. The High Court surveys authorities on TIP (Malkhansingh & Ors. v. State of M.P; Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab; Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala) and clarifies that TIP is not mandatory, but lack of TIP can be fatal where identification rests solely on court identification without corroboration. The court ultimately allows the revision in part: the conviction is maintained, but the sentence is reduced to eight months’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000; bail is cancelled and the petitioner must appear within three weeks to serve the modified sentence.
This writ appeal arises from Priya Varghese’s challenge to Ext.P4 provisional rank list for the post of Associate Professor (Malayalam) at Kannur University, in which the appellant (the 5th respondent in the writ petition) was found to be qualified while the writ petitioner Dr. Joseph Skariah challenged the process and certain qualifications. The Single Judge held that the appellant’s Faculty Development Programme (FDP) period and her deputation as Director of Student Services could not be counted as teaching/research experience under the UGC Regulations, 2018, and that non-joinder of Kannur University as a party was not fatal. The appeal frames five issues: (i) non-joinder of necessary parties; (ii) whether FDP research period counts as research experience under Ext.P2 with UGC Regulations; (iii) whether deputation as Director of Student Services can be counted as teaching experience; (iv) whether ad hoc Lecturer service can be counted as teaching experience; and (v) whether the required 8 years of teaching experience must be after Ph.D. The Division Bench (two judges) reverses the Single Judge, holding that FDP could count as research experience and NSS/Director of Student Services can count toward teaching experience; it also allows counting of the second ad hoc Lecturer spell. The court directs Kannur University to consider Priya Varghese’s candidature with these reckonings and notes the broader pedagogy and policy context, while cautioning about media coverage. The writ appeal is allowed with relief to the appellant. A post-script emphasizes judicial prudence in academic matters and privacy considerations.
This bail application concerns Dany Joshy, accused no.3 in Crime No.1112/2022 of the Kunnamkulam Police Station. The petitioner seeks regular bail under the NDPS Act after being in custody since 06.09.2022. The prosecution alleges that, on 05.09.2022 at around 11:30 pm, three accused were found in possession of 0.44 grams of LSD stamp, 23.65 grams of Netrosepham tablets, and 23.95 grams of ganja while traveling in a car (KL 55 W 993). They are charged under Sections 22(c), 20(b)(II)(a), and 29 of the NDPS Act. The defense argues that the 3rd accused did not have conscious possession and that the contraband was recovered from the 1st accused; therefore, his complicity should be read in isolation for purposes of Section 37. The Public Prosecutor counters that the accused acted jointly, statements were inconsistent, and contraband was seized from the car, making it difficult to satisfy the twin Section 37 conditions given the commercial quantity. The court, after perusing the case diary, notes that the contraband constitutes a commercial quantity and that the accused shared culpability. Relying on Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari and related authorities, the court reiterates that ‘reasonable grounds’ for bail under Section 37(1)(a)(i) require more than prima facie grounds and that there is no necessity to record a finding of not guilty. Consequently, the regular bail application is dismissed.
The batch of writ petitions challenges termination of provisional empanel KSRTC employees who had been regularised under a Bipartite Settlement (2008) and subsequent Government orders. The core dispute centers on the twin conditions for regularisation: ten years of service and a minimum 120 days of duty per year as on 21 December 2011, introduced by Government orders 22.12.2011 and clarified by the 21.11.2013 Government Order. KSRTC had regularised several employees relying on these orders and on earlier judgments. The KSRTC later terminated numerous employees in 2018, relying on the Supreme Court’s 2017 Civil Appeals (Nos. 4435–4438/2017) upholding the government’s ability to impose conditions for regularisation, which some petitioners claimed nullified their vested rights derived from earlier judgments. The High Court, analyzing conflicting precedents, held that the Supreme Court’s decision binds all, and that those regularised before 21.12.2011 are not shielded from the new condition if they fail to prove 120 days per year. The judgment sets aside the KSRTC termination orders and directs a hearing to determine whether petitioners meet the twin criteria; if so, regularisation must be ordered within a specified period, with pensionary or family benefits where applicable. The decision clarifies the application of government orders and constitutional binding force of Supreme Court rulings across all petitioners.
This writ appeal (WA No.1648 of 2022) arises from a challenge to Ext.P7, an order under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the Special Tahsildar (LA) at Kodappanakunnu, Thiruvananthapuram, relating to the acquisition for widening the Ulloor–Akkulam–NH Bypass Road. The appellant contends that she is entitled to redetermination of compensation under Section 28A on the basis that a co-owner in the same notification obtained higher compensation, and that the application was filed within the permissible window of three months from the court’s award, after accounting for time to obtain a copy. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that Section 28A confers a right to redetermination but must be exercised within three months from the court’s award, with no power to condone delay. The appellant relies on Supreme Court precedents such as Union of India v. Mangatu Ram, Tota Ram, Marri Venkaiah, Popat Bahiru Govardhane, and others to urge a liberal interpretation, while the respondents contend that the three-month limit is mandatory and cannot be extended, even on equitable grounds. The Kerala High Court reaffirms that Section 28A is a beneficent provision but must be construed to ensure the limitation is strictly observed. Delayed applications—in this case, a two-year gap—cannot be entertained, and the writ appeal is dismissed. The judgment emphasizes the object of 28A to remove inequality, yet within its statutory time frame.
Kevin Simson v. State of Kerala and Another is a Kerala High Court matter (CRL.MC No. 702 of 2023) decided on 15 March 2023. The petitioner, the sole accused in SC 287/2021 of the Fast Track Special Court, Attingal, seeks to quash proceedings arising from an alleged rape under sections 376(1) and 376(2)(n) IPC, based on a claim that the sexual act followed a false promise of marriage. The complainant-victim, employed at Technopark, alleged a relationship beginning in 2018–2019 wherein the petitioner professed love and promised marriage, accompanied her to locations, and allegedly engaged in sexual acts after a supposed consent induced by assurance of marriage. In the FIR dated 11.11.2019 and the 164 Cr.P.C. statement (21.8.2020), she described forceful sexual acts during a trip to Kanyakumari on 27.5.2019, a juice-induced memory lapse, and assertions of misappropriation of gold ornaments. The petitioner’s counsel relied on Mandar Deepak Pawar and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar to argue that at most a breach of promise occurred in good faith, not a false promise. The State and the victim’s counsel contended that rape encompassed coercive intercourse obtained under a misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC, and that consent may be vitiated by a false promise. The court discussed the distinction between rape and consensual sex, the meaning of consent under Section 90, and the requirement to assess whether a false promise was made with mala fide intent and whether such misrepresentation was directly connected to the sexual act. On the facts, the court found prima facie evidence of rape and held that quashing is unwarranted; the Crl.M.C. is dismissed and the proceedings continue, emphasizing that extraordinary jurisdiction to quash is sparingly used.
Shaji K.K., an Upper Division Clerk serving at the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd., Pala, files a writ petition challenging transfer orders Ext. P6 (to Perunthalmanna) and Ext. P9 (rejection of his representation). The petitioner alleges Ext. P9 was issued without giving him an opportunity of hearing. He had earlier challenged Ext. P6 in WP(C) No. 38550/2022, and this Court, by Ext. P7, directed consideration of his representation. In the present proceedings, the Court notes that Ext. P9 does not require interference, but also recognizes the petitioner's impending retirement in March 2024 and warrants sympathetic consideration. The Court directs that the petitioner may submit a representation within one week from receipt of the judgment, requesting accommodation near Pala in Kottayam district. If a representation is received, the 1st respondent is to consider it after providing an opportunity of hearing, keeping in mind the retirement timeline and the possibility of relocation near Pala. The petitioner may continue at his current shop until the representation is decided, and any consequential order should be passed expeditiously, within one month of receiving the representation. The judgment reflects a balance between administrative efficiency and the employee’s impending retirement, with a focus on a near-Pala placement if feasible.
Merin Abraham, a 37-year-old teacher educator (Mathematics) at St. Peter’s TTI, Kolenchery, filed this writ petition challenging a series of adverse administrative actions following her appointment to a retirement vacancy. She was appointed as Teacher Educator (Mathematics) w.e.f. 02.06.2014 (Ext P1). The post was established; however, her approval was initially rejected by the fourth respondent (Ext P2) and later confirmed (Ext P4). After the 5th respondent's proceedings, the DEO reconsidered and granted approval w.e.f. 02.06.2014 via Ext P7. Despite obtaining approval, salary was denied, triggering the petition. The court previously directed on 26.07.2021 that current salary from February 2021 be disbursed (subject to SPARK software glitches), and the Government Pleader indicated that the concerned DEO would implement the order. The petitioner argued that arrears from July 2014 and other salary enhancements should be disbursed and not diverted to PF accounts, citing judgments in W.P.(C.) No.17115/2022 and No.4874/2022. The respondents contended delays were due to technical issues with SPARK and sought to adopt administrative steps to ensure disbursement. The High Court ultimately allowed the petition, quashing Ext P11, making the 26.07.2021 order absolute, and directing the authorities to disburse arrears within three months, while ensuring current salary from Feb 2021 was paid and compliance is verified by producing a certified copy of the judgment.
D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases This judgment consolidates several matters concerning recruitment and appointment practices for Kazhakom (Kazhakam) posts under the Cochin Devaswom Board, including DBP No. 50 of 2020 and connected Writ Petitions. The common issue is the recruitment process for temple posts and the handling of casual/daily wage workers, including the extent to which vacancies were reported to the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (KDRB) after a select list dated 01.12.2018 was published for 60 vacancies. The Court reviews Ombudsman reports and directives against casual appointments, and examines whether the Board’s financial stringency and governance justify retaining those on allowance while awaiting regularization. It emphasizes fiduciary duties of trustees and the need for transparency in appointments, citing maximum principles such as the fiduciary duty of trustees and the admonition against “fences eating the crops.” The Bench directs the Board to report all vacancies, to provide details of those continuing on allowance, and to follow Annexure R1(b) guidelines issued on 05.07.2021 to ensure a transparent selection process. It holds that while a new select list was not yet published, candidates from the 2018 list should be given priority for appointments against daily wage/allowance posts arising before a new list is issued, and disposes of the DBPs and Writ Petitions with these directions, acknowledging broader regularisation concerns but refraining from sweeping orders beyond those laid out.
CO No. 101 of 2016; MACA No. 147 of 2016 This appeal and cross-objection arise from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode’s final award in OP(MV) No. 838/2014, concerning the death of Abdu Rahiman in a road accident on 22.03.2014. The cross objectors, Suhara (wife) and two others (including a minor represented by Suhara), challenged the Tribunal’s compensation of Rs. 10,25,000 on several heads, arguing the notional income of the deceased and the damages awarded were miscalculated. They contend the deceased earned more (evidence of Rs. 12,000 per month as a mosque employee) and that heads such as Loss of Love and Affection and Pain and Suffering were wrongly treated given dependency existed; they seek higher Loss of Dependency, and enhanced sums for Loss of Consortium. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. contends the Tribunal’s award was not excessive and that the notional income used (and the head-wise distribution) should stand, opposing inflation of claims and the inclusion of additional heads. The Court, after examining evidence, held that the Tribunal’s income assessment should be adjusted to Rs.10,000 per month with 10% future prospects and a 1/3 deduction for personal expenses, in light of Ramachandrappa, Rajani and Pranay Sethi. It also concluded, following Satinder Kaur and Pranay Sethi, that Loss of Love and Affection and Pain and Suffering should be deleted when Loss of Dependency is fully addressed, but awarded Rs.40,000 per claimant for Loss of Consortium and adjusted Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate to Rs.15,000 each. The appeal and cross-objections were partly allowed, with enhanced and reallocated compensation, plus interest, and a deposit directive for the insurer.
CRL.M.C Nos. 1517/2023, 1609/2023, 1807/2023, 1828/2023 and 4380/2023 The Kerala High Court, in a consolidated order, hears five Criminal Miscellaneous Cases challenging orders returning final reports in five separate FIRs involving alleged kidnappings and sexual offences against minor girls under IPC and the POCSO Act. The crux is whether the offence under Section 363 IPC is attracted where a minor is taken from guardianship. The court notes that the preliminary orders held that, since the girls left guardians voluntarily, the 363 offence could not be attracted. The State contends that kidnapping from lawful guardianship is a territorial issue and, under Section 181(2) Cr.P.C., may be inquired into or tried by the court within whose local jurisdiction the kidnapping or abduction occurred. The court examines precedents Varadarajan v. State of Madras, State of Haryana v. Raja Ram, Shajahan v. State of Kerala, and Parkash v. State of Haryana to interpret Section 361 IPC and the expressions 'takes' and 'entices'. The discussion clarifies that a minor’s consent is immaterial; only guardian’s consent matters, and persuasion by the accused to move a minor out of guardian custody can attract 361. The court holds that Palakkad has jurisdiction to try these cases and sets aside the impugned final-report orders, directing the trial to proceed.”
OP(KAT) NOS. 259 & 262 OF 2017 This joint judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court (Alexander Thomas, J. and Viju Abraham, J.) concerns two OP(KAT) petitions filed against a common order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) dated 11 July 2017. The petitions relate to the regularisation of daily-wage Security Guards appointed by the Government for service at the Secretariat, who were initially sponsored by KEXCON/Sainik Welfare Board and whose rank-list/predispositions were in flux. Annexure-A9 (12.2015) regularised several petitioners; Annexure-A14 (2017) cancelled that regularisation. The Tribunal’s combined order dismissed OA 654/2017 (rejecting illegality of Annexure-A14) and partly allowed OA 1309/2015 (challenging Annexure-A9). The Government’s decision to cancel Annexure-A9 under Rule 39 KS&SSR, aided by Rule 35 of the Kerala Civil Services Rules and Section 20 of the Kerala General Clauses Act, is scrutinised against Umadevi (Secretary, State of Karnataka) and subsequent Supreme Court authorities. The High Court holds that regularisation of daily-wage employees contravenes Umadevi and Satya Prakash decisions; hence Annexure-A14 is a valid corrective action and the petitions fail. The court dismisses the petitions and upholds the Tribunal’s order. The judgment emphasizes that daily-wage regularisation is not permissible, and government review of its own orders is permissible within constitutional framework.
The petitioner, A.O. Krishnan, was the opposite party in Labour Court Case No. 25/2021, Kozhikode. This Original Petition challenges Exhibits P5 and P10 orders of the Labour Court, which rejected the applicant’s requests to summon Bank Managers and produce the employee’s bank accounts and related documents for material periods. The Labour Court had allowed some interlocutory applications (I.A. Nos. 266/2021, 292/2021, 293/2022) but by Ext. P5 dated 05.11.2021 refused to summon the bank managers, noting that the opposite party, who pleads discharge, should place before the Court the bank statements revealing the amounts paid to the employee and that it had not complied with I.A. 266/2021 to produce the applicant’s own bank statement. The petitioner argued the order is illegal and arbitrary because summoning bank papers would expose that all due payments had been made and nothing remains payable. The respondent contends that the opposite party, who has pleaded discharge, must place materials on record to substantiate it; the attempt to summon multiple bank records is seen as a protraction of proceedings. The High Court, invoking Article 227, stressed restrained use of supervisory power and found no patent perversity or denial of natural justice, dismissing the petition and sustaining the Labour Court’s order. The judgment underscores cautious supervisory interference over interlocutory Labour Court decisions.
WP(C).2854/2009 (M); WP(C).2988/2009 These two writ petitions, heard together, arise from challenges to a Government Order directing retrenchment or reversion of teachers following a fall in student strength in the academic year 2007-2008 at St. John’s HSS, Eraviperoor, Pathanamthitt a. The petitions, filed by Smt. Jalajakumari (WP(C)2854/2009) and Smt. Suja Philip (WP(C)2988/2009), contend that the order—which forced two HST posts to be reverted to UPST/LPST due to a division fall—was irregular and improperly applied, especially since vacancies later reappeared in 2008-09. The Court stayed operation of the impugned order for over a decade, noting the extraordinary prejudice to the teachers who continued in service and often neared retirement. Counsel argued that the amendment making TTC mandatory for LPSTs came into force after the petitioners’ appointments, and that Suja Philip had a Rule 51A claim to UPST. The Judge emphasized extraordinary circumstances warranting an extraordinary remedy and contemplated relaxation under Rule 3, Chapter I of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) to accommodate the teachers in the 2007-2008 year, possibly using the 1:35 ratio as a special case. He directed the Government to hear all affected teachers and pass orders within three months, ensuring timely release of service benefits, while preserving the positions of Leena Philip and Soby George.
Sudha C, a 61-year-old woman, runs a Home Stay on her 5.24-acre property at Thavinjal, Mananthavady, Wayanad. Since 2015 she has operated the Home Stay with licences renewed up to 2017-18 and police clearance until 2020. When she applied for renewal for 2018-19, the 3rd respondent Village Officer issued Ext.P6 Stop Memo alleging violation of Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, and the Panchayat provisionally cancelled the licence by Ext.P7 on orders of the Tahsildar. She submits she is a bona fide purchaser who renovated a residential building and that Eco-tourism activities do not harm the environment or agriculture; she had ongoing licence renewals and a valid Police Clearance. Respondents contend the land is assigned for residential and agricultural use; extending Home Stay, a commercial activity, is not permitted under the land assignment rules; the new building’s plinth area (185.55 sq m) suggests non-residential use, and thus renewal is improper. The court notes that while Ext.P6 legality is doubtful and final orders are pending before the 5th respondent, it would be harsh to deny livelihood. It cites Haridas v. State of Kerala for the principle that diversion of assignment purpose can lead to cancellation, but finds no proven cessation of residential use or cultivation. The judge directs provisional licence renewal and NOC, with a final decision within a month after hearing, and allows objections to Ext.P6.
