Quashed

Mathew Joseph v. State of Kerala and Anothr

Kerala HC15 Sept 2008WP(C)/21268/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought permission to reclaim marshy land unfit for agriculture due to industrial waste. The lower authority rejected the application citing a pending paddy land protection bill. The court quashed the rejection order, directing the authority to consider the application on merits regarding ecological factors and sustainable agricultural properties within three months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 order quashed; respondents to pass fresh orders on Ext.P1 application within three months considering merits and Land Utilization Order provisions.

Mathew Joseph Vs State of Kerala and Anothr — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 21268 of 2008(F)

PETITIONER:

MATHEW JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, M/S. PALM FIBRES & YARNS TRADING COMPANY, THAIKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT COCHIN.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V.GIRI, J

¶18

W.P.(C).21268/2008

¶19

Dated this the 15^th day of September, 2008

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Petitioner claims to be the owner of 25 cents 400 sq.links of land in Kumbalam Village. According to the petitioner, the land is now lying as marshy land with industrial waste generated from the industries in Ambalamughal area through the backwaters and the land is therefore, unfit for any agricultural operations or even for prawn cultivation. He therefore submitted, Ext.P1 application before the second respondent the competent authority, under clause 6 of the Land Utilization order for permission to reclaim the land. The said application has been rejected by Ext.P2 order stating that the application cannot be considered in the light of the bill introduced in the Legislature in September, 2007, for protection of paddy land.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Sreekumar submits that as there is no legislation which has amended the Land Utilization Order or which has brought into force

¶23

¶24

W.P.(C).21268/2008

¶25

any restrictions as it were, on conversion of erstwhile paddy land or lands, which were designated as agricultural lands, to that extent the only reason cited by the second respondent in Ext.P2 to reject Ext.P1 application is untenable.

¶26

I find force in the submission. But a competent authority under the Land Utilization Order is bound to consider the application on merits. If there is an application for conversion of any agricultural land, it has to be considered with reference to the ecological factors and also the sustenance of any agricultural properties in the neighbourhood. The competent authority will have to apply its mind and then pass an order. Apparently that has not been done in this case.

¶27

I heard learned Government Pleader also. The writ

¶28

petition is taken up for disposal on consent of parties.

¶29

In the result, Ext.P2 order is quashed. Second

¶30

W.P.(C).21268/2008

¶31

¶32

respondent shall pass fresh orders on Ext.P1 application in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations made herein and taking note of the provisions of the Land Utilization Order. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

V.GIRI, Judge

¶34

mrcs

Mathew Joseph v. State of Kerala and Anothr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathew Joseph v. State of Kerala and Anothr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Kuriland(P)Ltd Vs P.J.Thomas

Prasanna Vs Ciy Corporation of Kochin

Balachandran Nair Vs Purushothaman and Another

C.v.Daniel Vs N.Vijayakumar

The Plantation Corporation of Keralaltd Vs the Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner

Chandra Shenoy @ Chandrakala.v.Shenoy Vs Indian Oil Corporation and Others