LAWS(KER)-2017-8-420

SUKANYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On August 04, 2017
SUKANYA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are persons who are beneficiaries under different schemes of the respondent Corporation for construction of small residential houses. The petitioners 1 to 5 were included in the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribe Development Project for construction of residential houses and petioners 1 to 4 were sanctioned an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and the 5th petitioner Rs.2,50,000/- as per the Special Project No.569/2016 for disabled girl children. Respondents 6 to 8 were included under the Ashraya Project implemented through Kudumbasree and were sanctioned Rs.3,00,000/-, and the 9th respondent was granted Rs.2,50,000/- on behalf of her mentally disabled girl child.

(2.) Petitioners 1 to 4 purchased 3 cents of land and the other petitioners purchased 1.5 cents each. The purchase was made with the concurrence of the Corporation as is evidenced from Ext.P2 series of requests made before the Corporation in which the Overseer attached to the Corporation inspected the property and found it to be suitable for house construction. The petitioners having purchased the property approached the Corporation for building permit when they were faced with communications produced as Ext.P6 series. The Corporation found that the land is described as "nilam" in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) and hence there was a requirement for permission for conversion of user from the District Collector under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (for short " the KLU Order"). The petitioners were directed to approach the District Collector/RDO.

(3.) The petitioners rely on Ext.P7 Circular dated 20.02.2008 wherein the Government had specifically instructed the District Collector's/RDO's to favourably consider applications for small house construction even by filling up paddy lands. The petitioners submit that Ext.P8 is an interim order in a writ petition filed by similar beneficiaries wherein permission was granted as per Ext.P7 circular. The Standing Counsel for the Corporation admits that such conversion of user was permitted.