Maneesh K.M. vs The District Level Authorised Committee

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.—Petitioner is the owner of 12 cents of property in Survey No. 24/48/1/3 in T.V Puram Village. This is classified as nilam in the draft data bank. Petitioner has approached the Local Level Monitoring Committee seeking a permission for putting up a residential building in 10 cents. The Local Level Monitoring Committee recommended the petitioner''s request by Ext. P1 to the District Level Authorising Committee. The District Level Authorising Committee by Ext. P4 returned the request stating that the petitioner''s father is the owner of a dry land and the petitioner''s request cannot be considered in terms of the relevant provisions of the Act. Challenging Ext. P4, petitioner filed an appeal before the District Collector, Kottayam. The District Collector, Kottayam affirmed the decision of the District Level Authorising Committee. Challenging these orders, this writ petition is filed.

In this matter, a detailed statement has been filed by the third respondent. It is stated in the statement that Mohan and Beena, father and mother of the petitioner have 15 and 16.5 cents of garden land in Sy. No. 28/1B of T.V puram village and petitioner being a bachelor, is bound to get his share of parents property. It is also stated that there is no guarantee that the petitioner will construct a house in the property as per specification.

Sec. 9(8)(ii) of the Act 28 of 2008 states that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sec. (i), no application shall be considered by the District Level Monitoring Committee unless the Local Level Monitoring Committee has recommended that the owner of paddy land or his family do not own a suitable land for the purpose in that district. Petitioner''s family admittedly own properties in the same district. Therefore, according to the District Level Authorising Committee since the petitioner''s father and mother owns a property, a dry land, this application cannot be considered.

There are two parts in Sec. 9(8)(ii) firstly, the applicant must be the owner of paddy land, secondly, his family do not own a suitable land for his purpose. The petitioner is qualified in terms of the first part being owner of the paddy land, petitioner is disqualified in terms of the second part for the reason that his family own a dry land in the same district. The question is whether the petitioner''s family owns a suitable land for this purpose. The suitability of the land for this purpose is the criteria to disallow such request made in terms of Sec. 5 of the Act 28 of 2008. If the petitioner''s parents do not allow the petitioner or petitioner do not want to occupy the house along with the family, can this embargo would apply. I am of the view, if the purpose of construction is for the family, necessarily this provision will qualify. The petitioner being a bachelor, does not want to stay along with his parents in such circumstance, the embargo under Sec. 9(8)(ii) would not apply, nobody can force a person to construct residential building in another persons property. The above provision would apply if the construction is intended for the residential house of the family. Therefore, the purpose and reasons stated in such application has to be looked into from the stand point of intention to occupy. If the occupation is intended for the family, embargo will apply. If the occupation is intended not for the family, the embargo will not apply. It is admitted that petitioner is a bachelor. He has no case that construction is for the purpose of family. Therefore, the second part of Sec. 9(8)(ii) of the Act 28 of 2008 would not apply in this matter.

Petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Local Level Monitoring Committee as to the nature of occupation of the residential building and on being satisfied with the genuineness of such claim, necessarily, the Local Level Monitoring Committee shall recommend the application if other conditions are satisfied. Needful shall be done within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the District Level Authorising Committee shall pass a decision based on the decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee within a further period of four weeks. It is made clear that if the petitioner makes out a case that his intention is for occupation of residential building for himself and after constructing a residential building permission need to be granted, if above aspects are absent, necessarily the Local Level Monitoring Committee can reject the application in accordance with law.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.