Dismissed

K.Madhavan v. the District Collector

Kerala HC21 Jun 2012WP(C)/12447/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a conversion order. The Court directed the additional respondent (Secretary, Dept. of Revenue) to decide the pending revision petition within six months and maintained the interim stay on the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Secretary to take a decision on the revision petition within six months and not to implement the impugned order pending the decision.

K.Madhavan Vs the District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2012/31ST JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 12447 of 2012 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. K.MADHAVAN, S/O.KARTHIAYINI AMMA, KANNATT HOUSE, CHEMBUKAVU THRISSUR.

¶8

2. V.GOPALAKRISHNAN

¶9

S/O.MENNAKSHI AMMA, VALYOOR HOUSE, VILVATTOM P.O. THRISSUR.

¶10

3. P.C.LASAR

¶11

S/O.CHATHUNNI, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, CHEMBUKAVU

¶12

THRISSUR.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.GANGESH

¶14

SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH

¶15

RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶17

COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-1.

¶18

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶19

COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-1.

¶20

3. Addl.3. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.

¶21

ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/06/2012 IN IA 8366/2012.

¶22

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No. 12447 of 2012 (E)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶27

EXT.P1	:	A ROUGH LOCATION SKETCH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXT.P2	:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANCHOOR DATED 3-10-2011.
EXT.P3	:	TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ANCHOOR ON 3-10-2011 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXT.P4	:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERAMANGALAM TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 29-1-2012.
EXT.P5	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 7-5-2012.
EXT.P6	:	TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DATED 9-6-2012.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

amk

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶33

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.12447 of 2012

¶34

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

¶35

Dated this the 21st day of June, 2012

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent under the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The allegation was one of conversion of paddy land. The petitioners have filed a revision petition before the Government under Section 28 of the Act, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P6 along with I.A. No.8365/2012. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for a direction to the Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, viz. the additional third respondent herein, to take a decision on Ext.P6 revision petition.

¶38

Heard learned Government Pleader.

¶39

There will be a direction to the additional third respondent to take a decision on Ext.P6 revision petition, after hearing the petitioners, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition.

¶40

This Court has already granted an interim order on 30.5.2012 directing to keep in abeyance the proceedings issued as per Ext.P5. There

¶41

WPC.12447/2012 - 2-

¶42

will be a direction to the respondents not to take steps to implement Ext.P5 till orders are passed on Ext.P6.

¶43

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶44

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶45

kav/

K.Madhavan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Madhavan v. the District Collector

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

Sathianathan Vs State of Kerala

Kozhikode District Co-Operative Travel & Tourism Development Vs the District Registrar (General)

Valsamma Vs the District Collector, Kottayam

Aswathy Krishnan Vs Sree Narayana College for Women

Jagadeesh Chandra Vs State of Kerala

Indu Raveendran Vs Union of India