Allowed

T.K.Chamikutty v. the District Collector, Palakkad

Kerala HC1 Jun 2011WP(C)/10484/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Writ Court directed the District Collector to implement final orders restoring paddy land to paddy cultivation within three months. The court reserved the right to proceed against petitioners if they similarly violated land use laws regarding their own coconut plantation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to implement the final orders within three months.

T.K.Chamikutty Vs the District Collector, Palakkad — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 10484 of 2009(E) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

T.K.CHAMIKUTTY,S/O.KORU, THUVARAKKATTIL HOUSE, KINAVALLOOR, PARALI.P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

THE DISTRICT COLLECTRO, PALAKKAD.

¶13

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,PALAKKAD.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD.

¶15

HARIRAJAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, MACHATH HOUSE, VAVOOR, THENUR PALAKKAD.

¶16

LEKSHMI, W/O.LATE. VEERAN, MACHATH HOUSE,KINAVALLUR, PARLI.P.O.,PALAKKAD.

¶17

RADHAKRISHNAN,S/O.LATE.VEERAN, MACHATH HOUSE, KINAVALLUR, PARLI.P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶18

ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O.LATE.VEERAN, MACHATH HOUSE,KINAVALLUR, PARLI.P.O.PALAKKAD.

¶19

UNIKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE.VEERAN, MACHATH HOUSE, KINAVALLUR, PARLI.P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶20

SUMATHI, D/O.LATE VEERAN, MACHATH HOUSE, KINAVALLUR, PARLIL.P.O.,PALAKKAD.

¶21

RAJAN, S/O.LATE.VEERAN, MACHATH HOUSE, KINAVALLUR, PARLI.P.O.,PALAKKAD.

¶22

ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY FOR R4,8 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No. 10484 of 2009

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

EXHIBITS

¶27

EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.12.98 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶28

EXT.P2A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M.247/05 DATED 18.8.2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶29

EXT.P3A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.4.08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.9.08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P5A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.10.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

¶30

(TRUE COPY)

¶31

P.A TO JUDGE

¶32

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶33

W.P.(C).10484/2009

¶34

Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2011

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved of the laxity on the part of the concerned respondent in giving effect to Exts.P1 and P2 orders passed by the Commissioner for Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram, and the second respondent/RDO respectively.

¶37

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is having paddy cultivation in Survey No.17/1 and 17/6 of Parali Village and the said operation has been virtually made difficult by virtue of the adverse steps taken by the father of the respondents 4 to 10 and in the due course, by respondents 4 to 10 as well, being the legal heirs of the deceased father; whereby the nearby property, which originally belonged to the father of respondents 4 to 10 and remaining as paddy land, was converted without any regard to the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order and without obtaining any licence or sanction effecting rubber plantation therein, which has adversely affected the rights of the petitioner. Met with the situation, the petitioner moved the concerned authorities pursuant to which, an order was passed

¶38

W.P.(C).10484/2009

¶39

¶40

against the father of respondents 4 to 10 giving a positive direction to restore the land back to its position as a 'paddy land'; which was challenged by filing an appeal before the Commissioner for Land Revenue. After considering the merits involved, the issue was finalized by passing Ext.P1 order dated 1.12.1998 and the appeal was dismissed. Since nothing turned out in the positive, petitioner took further steps before the concerned authorities which culminated in Ext.P2 order dated 18.8.2005, whereby the second respondent directed the subordinate authorities to implement Ext.P1 making clear that the Village Officer will be authorized to remove the rubber trees at the cost of the petitioners before 10.9.2005 and to report compliance.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exts.P1 and P2 have become final; despite which no positive steps have been taken to implement the same. As a matter of fact, the petitioner brought this to the notice of the RDO, who gave Ext.P3 direction on 30.4.2008 directing Exts.P1 and P2 to be implemented with police assistance. Since there was callous inaction on the part of the concerned authorities, petitioner approached the first respondent/District Collector by filing Ext.P5

¶42

W.P.(C).10484/2009

¶43

¶44

complaint, which has not been considered and hence is constrained to approach this Court by filing the writ petition.

¶45

A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, wherein the sequence of events has been confirmed as narrated in the writ petition. It is stated that the order passed by the RDO is to be implemented and earnest efforts will be taken to comply with the same within the shortest possible time.

¶46

The eighth respondent has filed counter affidavit raising several contentions that the said respondent does not have any property in Survey No.17/1 and 17/6 of Parli Village, Simultaneously pointing out that the writ petitioner has also converted his property (paddy land) to coconut plantation and this has already affected the natural flow of water. It is stated that no action is being pursued by the concerned respondent against the petitioner and his activities, with reference to the relevant provisions of law in this regard. In response to the said submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said allegation is quite wrong and the petitioner has not pursued any such activity with regard to the conversion of land. It is also stated that the petitioner is having absolutely no

¶47

W.P.(C).10484/2009

¶48

¶49

objection with regard to the steps if any, to be taken by the concerned respondents, if the petitioner has converted his property, contrary to the relevant provisions of law.

¶50

In the above circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that Exts.P1 and P2 have become final, there will be a direction to the first respondent to implement the same forthwith, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also open to the concerned respondents to proceed against the petitioner and his properties in a similar manner, if any activities have been pursued with regard to the conversion of the paddy land as alleged, contrary to the relevant provisions of law, which shall be effected after issuing proper notice and without any delay.

¶51

Writ petition is allowed to the above. No cost.

¶52

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge

¶53

mrcs

T.K.Chamikutty v. the District Collector, Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Chamikutty v. the District Collector, Palakkad

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

Thomas Kurian Vs Syndicate Bank

Budha Ambedkar Samithi Vs State of Kerala

Jai Jawan Ex-Servicemen Vs Director General of Re-Settlement

Jaya Ashok Kumar Vs Manager,Iob & Another

Mrs.Heln Britto Vs the Banking Ombudsman

E.P.Syamala Vs the Secretary