Disposed

Kamallouis v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC28 Nov 2013WP(C)/14359/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that it cannot finally adjudicate the land classification issue under Act 28 of 2008. The petitioners were directed to approach the competent authority (District Collector) as the matter requires factual determination of whether the land is 'paddy' or 'wet' land under the Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; petitioners directed to approach the District Collector under Clause 6 of KLU Order.

Kamallouis Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 14359 of 2013 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. KAMALLOUIS, S/O.ANTONY, KANNIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADUTHALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 023.

¶8

2. COLLINS,

¶9

S/O.ANTONY, KANNIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADUTHALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 023.

¶10

3. SOFIA KAMALLOUIS, W/O.LOUIS, KANNIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADUTHALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 023.

¶11

4. DIXY COLLIN,

¶12

W/O.COLLINS, KANNIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADUTHALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 023.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

¶14

SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH

¶15

RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 003.

¶17

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶18

VALLIVATTOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 1213.

¶19

*** ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED**

¶20

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680003. IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 28/11/2013

¶21

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.SOYUS

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

WP(C).No. 14359 of 2013 (T)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALLIVATTOM.

¶28

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALLIVATTOM, DATED 13.06.2007.

¶29

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALLIVATTOM, DATED 28.01.2013.

¶30

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY ONE SUJANA BABU AND OTHERS, DATED 25.01.2013 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 01.02.2013.

¶32

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 18.03.2013.

¶33

EXHIBIT P7. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS, DATED 03.04.2013.

¶34

EXHIBIT P8. TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.

¶35

EXHIBIT P9. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.2199/07 IN THE NAME OF 1ST AND 2ND PETITIONERS, DATED 28/6/2007

¶36

EXHIBIT P10. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TITILE DEED NO.3399/07 IN THE NAME OF 3RD AND 4TH PETITIONERS, DATED 3/10/2007

¶37

EXHIBIT P11. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, DATED 17/5/2013.

¶38

EXHIBIT P12. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, DATED 17/5/2013

¶39

EXHIBIT P13. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, DATED 16/8/11

¶40

EXHIBIT P14. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, DATED 16/8/11

¶41

EXHIBIT P15. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALLIVATTOM, DATED 12/9/2013.

.....2/-

..2..

WP(C).No. 14359 of 2013 (T)

¶46

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

¶47

ANNEXURE R1(A). TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DRAFT DATA BANK ANNEXURE R1(B). TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23/8/2013.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶52

========================

¶53

W.P.(C). No. 14359 of 2013

¶54

-------------------------------------------Dated this the 28th day of November, 2013

¶55

JUDGMENT

¶56

The petitioners are stated as aggrieved of Ext.P5 Stop Memo issued by the 2nd respondent, whereby the activities being pursued by the petitioners in the property covered by Exts. P9 and P10 title deeds produced along with reply affidavit (based on some complaint preferred by the local inhabitants stating that some activities has been pursued by the petitioners in contravention of the provisions of Act 28 of 2008) are sought to be interdicted.

¶57

The case of the petitioners is that, the property owned, possessed and enjoyed by them in Sy. Nos. 286/1, 286/2, 263 Part of Vallivattom Village covered by Exts. P9 and P10 title deeds and Exts. P1 to P3 location sketch/possession Certificates is a dry land and is not a 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as per the definition under Sections 2(xii) and 2(xviii) of the Act 28 of 2008. It was without any regard to the factual position, that Ext.P4 complaint was preferred leading to Ext.P5 Stop Memo. Ext.P6 objection was submitted by the petitioners before the 2nd respondent on 18.3.2013. Reliance is also sought to be placed

¶58

W.P.C. No. 14359 of 2013 -2-

¶59

on Ext.P8 photographs, showing existence of age old Coconut Palms in the property. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are per se wrong and illegal in all respects.

¶60

A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent producing copies of the relevant pages of draft Data Bank Register as Annexure R1(a). The learned Government Pleader submits with reference to said statement that, the land comprised in Sy. No. 286/2 is classified as 'Purayidam', whereas the lands comprised in Sy.Nos. 448/5 and 448/6 are classified as 'Nilam' in the BTR and the Draft Data Bank Register.

¶61

In the above circumstance, this Court finds that the matter requires to be considered and finalized by the competent authority. It has to be ascertained whether the property is actually a 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as defined under Act 28 of 2008. The District Collector, Thrissur who is suo motu impleaded as the additional 3rd respondent herein and the learned Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the said respondent as well. The petitioners are relegated to approach the additional 3rd respondent by filing necessary application

¶62

W.P.C. No. 14359 of 2013 -3-

¶63

under Clause 6 of the KLU Order for redressal of the grievance within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, upon which, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court as per the decision rendered in Praveen K. v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram & Others ( 2010 (2) KLT 617) , holding that, if the property was not remaining as a 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as on the date of commencement of Act 28 of 2008, it has to be considered in terms of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, so as to enable the party to make use of the property for any other purpose than agricultural purpose. This shall be done at the earliest, at any rate within 'one month' thereafter.

¶64

The petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the additional 3rd respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶65

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶66

kp/-

Kamallouis v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamallouis v. Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Vineesh Vs M.K.Kaladharan

All Kerala Chemist and Drugist Association Vs State of Kerala

Cheelangatt Pushparaj Vs Southern Railway

A.Vijayakumari Vs Thge District Collector, Kannur

K.K. Ashokan Vs the Additional District Magistrate

Kanhangadan Puthanpurayil Janaki Vs the District Collector