Kerala High Court
Asha Samuel vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA,
1945
WP(C) NO. 4891 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
ASHA SAMUEL
AGED 49 YEARS
D/O SAMUEL, RESIDING AT VADAKKAN HOUSE,
KURUMALA P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680586
BY ADVS.
CHRISTINE MATHEW
AISWARYA E J VETTIKOMPIL
ABESH ALOSIOUS
SEN C PUTHUPPARAMPIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001., PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THRISSUR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680125
4 THE TAHZILDAR, CHALAKUDY TALUK OFFICE,
CHALAKUDY,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680307
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THAZHEKAD VILLAGE OFFICE, KOMBODINJAMAKKAL,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 678069
6 DISTRCT LEVEL AUTHORISED COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680125
7 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ALOOR,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680121
8 THE SECRETARY
ALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680121
WPC No.4891/2024
2
9 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, ALOOR, THAZHEKAD P.O.THRISSUR,
PIN - 680697
BY ADV PHILIP T.VARGHESE
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT. DEVISHREE
SC- SRI. THOMAS. T. VARGHESE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC No.4891/2024
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner of an extent of 2.02 ares
of land in Survey No. 289/4-4 and 289/4-8 of Thazhekad
Village obtained as per Ext.P1 sale deed.
2. Since the property was included in the
Data Bank as paddy land, the petitioner submitted an
application before the District Level Authorised
Committee (DLAC), the 6th respondent under Section
9(1) of Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act,
2008 (for short 'the Act) for construction of a residential
building in the said property. The said application was
allowed by the 6th respondent as per Ext.P3 order and
the petitioner carried out the construction. The petitioner
wants to sell the said property. However, condition
No.2 in Ext.P3 restrains the petitioner from alienating the
property. Condition No.2 in Ext.P3 provides that the
reclaimed land or the house constructed therein shall not
be alienated.
3. Aggrieved by the condition No.2 in Ext.P3
order, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 request before the
District Collector to delete the aforesaid condition in
Ext.P3. The District Collector called for a report from the
Revenue Divisional Officer and the Revenue Divisional
Officer has submitted Ext.P5 report. However, since the
District Collector has not so far considered Ext.P4 request
of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this
Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to
Circular No.395/R.A1/2017/LSGD dated 05.07.2018
whereby clarification has been issued not to impose such
restrictions. Further, this Court has in the decision
reported in Sudheesh K.R. v. Nadathara Grama
Panchayat and Others [2019 (5) KHC 725] held that
imposition of such a condition would be against the
constitutional right of the owner under Article 300 A of
the Constitution of India. This Court observed as
follows:-
"14. The right to property in India is
guaranteed by Article 300A and under it, no
citizen can be deprived of his property except
under a procedure sanctioned by law.
Pertinently, no where in the Paddy Land Act is
any power given to the DLAC to permanently
prohibit transfer of converted Paddy Land,
which conversion is regularized under their
orders, and hence no amount of persuasion can
vest them with such powers. That part, it is
now too well settled for requirement to be
restated that absolute restraint on transfer of
property by the State or its functionaries are
constitutionally impermissible; and therefore,
at the best, only reasonable restrictions, as
sanctioned by law, can be imposed.
15. The impugned condition in Ext.P1
order certainly is an unreasonable and
unconstitutional interdiction on the right of the
petitioner to deal with and enjoy his property
and cannot find favour with this Court; and
axiomatically, therefore, I cannot grant
imprimatur to it.".
6. In the light of the said judgment I hold that
condition No.2 in Ext.P3 order to the extent it restrains
the petitioner from selling the land and the building
thereon cannot be sustained. Accordingly, there will be a
direction to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate order
on Ext.P4 request of the petitioner in the light of the
decision cited above.
The writ petition is disposed of with the said
direction.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
al/-.23.02.2024.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4891/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED
24.04.2014 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO
1669 OF 2014 OF KALLETTUMKARA SUB
REGISTRAR'S OFFICE IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit p2 THE TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT
DATED 01.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.08.2016
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P 4 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
28.02.2023
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
11.05.2023
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN
GAZETTE DATED 12.02.2021
