AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Nagaresh, J
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.
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.
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 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.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.
This Court has considered the legality of imposing such conditions in restraint of transfer, in the judgments in Ramankutty v. PrincipalÂ
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.