Jithin K.John vs District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 13287 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 1622 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

         JITHIN K.JOHN,
         AGED 29 YEARS,
         KALEEKKAL JITHIN VILLA, EREZHA NORTH,
         KANNAMANGALAM, MAVELIKKARA,
         ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.DEEPU THANKAN
         SMT.UMMUL FIDA
         SMT.LAKSHMI SREEDHAR


RESPONDENTS:

    1    DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
         OFFICE AT CIVIL STATION WARD,
         ALAPPUZHA, KERALA-688001.
    2    SUB COLLECTOR,
         OFFICE AT CIVIL STATION WARD,
         ALAPPUZHA, KERALA-688001.
    3    DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISED COMMITTEE,
         ALAPPUZHA, KERALA-688001,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

         GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANU RAJ

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP          FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME          DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.1622/2021
                                 :2 :




                         JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

Dated this the 24th day of June, 2021

The petitioner, who owns 3.24 Ares of land in

Alappuzha District, is before this Court seeking to quash condition

No.6 in Ext.P2, imposing restriction of transfer of property of the

petitioner covered by Ext.P1 Sale Deed.

2. The petitioner owns 3.24 Ares of land in Re-Survey

No.162/6-3-2 and 162/16-1-2 of Pallipad Village in Alappuzha

District. The property was described as "Nilam" in Revenue

records. The petitioner submitted an application invoking Rule 5 of

the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Rules seeking permission to

convert the land for constructing house. After following due

procedures, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P2 order granting

permission to convert the stipulated extent of land for the purpose

of construction of residential building, on conditions.

3. Condition No.6 in Ext.P2 restrained the petitioner from

alienating the land permitted to be converted, for a period of 10

years. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said condition. According WP(C) No.1622/2021

to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent cannot put such a clog on

alienation of property. It hits the constitutional right of the

petitioner, guaranteed under Articles 21 and 300A of the

Constitution of India.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

5. This Court has considered the legality of imposing such

conditions in restraint of transfer, in the judgments in Ramankutty

v. Principal Agricultural Officer, Malappuram and another

[2014 KHC 3692] and Suresh K.R. v. Nadathara Grama

Panchayat and others [2019 (5) KHC 725]. This Court held that

the respondents have no power or authority to impose any

condition putting a complete embargo on the right of alienation.

This writ petition is therefore liable to be allowed following that law

laid down by this Court.

The writ petition is allowed. Condition No.6 in Ext.P2

imposing restriction on transfer, would stand quashed.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/25.06.2021 WP(C) No.1622/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1622/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1187/2013 OF SRO CHEPPAD.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 06.06.2014. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 12.11.2014.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 03.08.2015.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.25888/2015 DATED 01.08.2018.

SR