Partly allowed

K.P.Hussain v. Rdo,Perinthalmanna and Another

Kerala HC29 Mar 2011Crl.MC/756/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008, the High Court quashed proceedings against the petitioner. It held that penalty provisions attract only when land is notified under Section 5(4) of the Act, rendering complaints prior to notification unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No.756 of 2011 is allowed; Annexure-B complaint, cognizance, and proceedings in C.C. No.56 of 2010 are quashed.

K.P.Hussain Vs Rdo,Perinthalmanna and Another — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 756 of 2011()

¶5

-----------------------CC.56/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI ....................

¶6

PETITIONER / ACCUSED

¶7

-----------------------------------

¶8

K.P.HUSSAIN, S/O.KUNHAHEMMED THAYYIL HOUSE, KURUPPATH KONDOTTY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) /DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶11

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶12

1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

dmb

¶17

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶18

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C. No.756 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29^th day of March 2011

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.56 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri facing trial for offence punishable under Sec.23 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 (for short, “the Act”). Complaint was preferred by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 16.3.2010 alleging that petitioner converted/reclaimed his paddy land by filling it with soil which came to the notice of the authorities on 12.2.2010. According to the first respondent, the said act of petitioner amounted to violation of Sec.3 of the Act and hence, he is punishable under Sec.23 of the said Act. Learned counsel, placing reliance on the decision in Firose v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Malappuram and another [2011 (1) KHC 615] contends that the alleged conversion/reclamation of the

¶21

Crl.M.C. No.756 of 2011

¶22

-: 2 :-

¶23

land if any was before the data-bank was prepared and published by the Local Monitoring Committee as required under Sec.5(4) of the Act. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the local level monitoring committee met on 14.12.2009, prepared the data-bank on 6.9.2010 but, it was published in the gazatte only on 22.9.2010.

¶24

Though, Sec.3 of the Act deals with prohibition of conversion or reclamation of paddy land except in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Sec.23 of the Act which deals with penalty states that the penalty is attracted only when any paddy land or wet land notified under subsection (4) of Sec.5 is reclaimed/converted. Referring to the said provision, this Court in the decision relied on by learned counsel for petitioner held that prosecution can stand only when paddy land which is notified under Sec.5(4) of the Act is reclaimed or converted. In the present case, it is not disputed that the alleged conversion/reclamation was

¶25

Crl.M.C. No.756 of 2011

¶26

before 12.2.2010 while the data-bank was prepared only on 6.9.2010 and it was published in the gazatte on 22.9.2010. In the light of what I have stated above, the complaint against petitioner cannot be stand and is liable to be quashed.

¶27

Resultantly this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-B complaint, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioner in C.C.No.56 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri are quashed.

¶28

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶29

Jvt

K.P.Hussain v. Rdo,Perinthalmanna and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Hussain v. Rdo,Perinthalmanna and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjalabai Usman Vs the D.G.P. of Police

Deepa Vijayakumar Vs Devaki

M/S. Rakhi Agencies Vs Food Inspector, Chalakudy Circle & Anr.

G.Ambika Vs Devadas & Others

Habeeb Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Joseph Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Others