Quashed

V.v.Sivadasan v. the Local Level Monitoring Committee

Kerala HC19 Nov 2011WP(C)/29470/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala addressed a writ petitioner's challenge to a rejection of his application to fill patta land for a residential house. It held that under Section 9 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, mere ownership of other land is not a disqualification unless that land is found suitable. Since the respondent failed to consider suitability, the court quashed t

What did the court decide?

The endorsement rejecting the petitioner's application was quashed. The petitioner was directed to resubmit the application, and the first respondent was directed to reconsider it while examining the

V.v.Sivadasan Vs the Local Level Monitoring Committee — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 29470 of 2011(G)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

V.V.SIVADASAN,S/O.VELAPPAN,AGED 55 YEARS, KALLIYANI MANDIRAM,VALAKKARA, TARUR ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.BABY MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE RE.BY ITS SECRETARY, TARUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH TARUR P.O, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN- 678 001.

¶14

2. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, TARUR P.O, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN- 678 001.

¶15

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER TARUR P.O, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN-678 001.

¶16

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

WP(C)NO.29470/2011

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD, DATED 04.03.2005.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE OF THE ABOVE MOTOR SHED(BUILDING NO.T.P IV/822) DATED 04.09.2011 ISSUED FROM TARUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF PUMP TEST CONDUCTED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER,GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, DATED 21.10.2004.

¶26

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08.09.2010.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 29470 OF 2011

¶33

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2011

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Petitioner wants to construct a residential house in a patta land owned by him. Therefore he made Ext.P5 application to the first respondent u/s 9 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 for filling up the land. On that application the first respondent made an endorsement that the application cannot be granted for the reason that the petitioner has other land owned by him. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶36

The reason stated in Ext.P5 for rejecting the request of the petitioner is that he owns other garden lands. However the case of the petitioner is that the garden land which is mentioned in Ext.P5 is an ancestral property owned by his mother and that the said land is not suitable for construction of a new house.

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 29470 OF 2011

¶38

:2 :

¶39

S.9(8) of the Act provides that no application

¶40

shall be considered by the District Level Committee unless the first respondent recommended that the owner of the paddy land or his family do not own a suitable land for the purpose in that District. Therefore even if it is assumed that the family of the person owns other lands, unless that land is suitable for the purpose, namely for the purpose of construction of a residential building, the said provision of S.9 of the Act will not be a disqualification for passing favourable orders. In this case, a reading of Ext.P5 shows that the suitability of the other land owned by the petitioner's family was not considered by the first respondent. Therefore rejection of the application, cannot be sustained.

¶41

For the above said reasons I quash the endorsement on Ext.P5 rejecting the application of the petitioner and direct that it will be open to the petitioner to

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 29470 OF 2011

¶43

:3 :

¶44

submit the application to the first respondent, in the event of which, the first respondent will reconsider the application and also consider the suitability of the land owned by the family of the petitioner for construction of a residential house.

¶45

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶46

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

V.v.Sivadasan v. the Local Level Monitoring Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.v.Sivadasan v. the Local Level Monitoring Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Medical Sensors India Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Transport Commissioner and Another

P.Raju Vs the Assistant General Manager

John Thomas Vs Kaviyoor Sleeba Malankara Orthdox Church

P.K.Manikantan Vs the District Collector,Malappuram

Prasannan Thomas Vs the District Collector,Idukki & Ors.

P.T.Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala