Allowed

K.P. Ramanunni v. Revenue Dsivisional Officer

Kerala HC1 Oct 2013WP(C)/14683/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the delay in finalizing a representation for change of land classification. The court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to finalize the proceedings under the Kerala Land Utilization Order within two months, as the land was not paddy or wet land attracting the 2008 Act.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent directed to finalize the petitioner's representation for change of classification within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment.

K.P. Ramanunni Vs Revenue Dsivisional 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

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/9TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 14683 of 2013 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

K.P. RAMANUNNI, AGED 58 YEARS S/O.DAMODHARAN NAIR, KARUMATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU P.O.PERUMANNA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SAJU.S.A

¶9

SRI.T.SIVADASAN SMT.P.A.SHEEJA SMT.MEENA.A.

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

1. REVENUE DSIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 026.

¶12

2. TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 026.

¶13

3. VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUMANNA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,

¶14

PIN-673 026.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

...2/-

¶19

WP(C).No. 14683 of 2013 (I)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT DEED BEARING NO.1594/1997, S.R.O. MAVOOR, DATED 13.8.1997.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT NATURE OF THE PLOT.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P2(a) TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT NATURE OF THE PLOT.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY PERUMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 16/5/2008.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 15.3.2013.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT:19-3-2013.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated as owner of the property having an extent of 30.5 cents in R. Survey No. 232 of Perumanna Amsom, obtained to him as per Ext. P1 assignment deed executed before the SRO, Mavoor. The case of the petitioner is that said property is 'dry land' having reclaimed decades ago, and that same is not liable to be described as 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as contemplated under Act 28 of 2008.

¶37

The learned counsel counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, with an intent to construct a residential building in the property, had obtained building permit vide Ext. P3 on 16.05.2008 from the local authority and effected construction accordingly. But since the property stands described as 'Nilam' in the Revenue records, the petitioner was constrained to file Ext. P4 representation before the first respondent for change of classification. It is pointed out that, pursuant to Ext. P4, the third respondent has conducted a spot inspection and submitted Ext. P5 report, showing the lie and nature of the property. Ext. P2 series is the photographs showing

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 14683 of 2013

¶39

: 2 :

¶40

the nature of the land. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of all these proceedings, Ext. P4 is still to be finalized.

¶41

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits on instructions, that property in question is shown as 'paddy land ' in the Data Bank Register.

¶42

The law has been declared as per the decision rendered

¶43

in JafarKhan Vs. K.A. Kochumarakkar & Ors. [2012 (1) KHC 523] that the provisions of the Conservation of Kerala paddy land and Wet land Act are applicable only in respect of the land which are lying as 'paddy land' and 'wet land' as on the date of commencement of the 'Act'. It has been declared by a Division Bench of this Court in Praveen Vs. Land Revenue

¶44

Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617) that, if the property concerned is not a 'paddy land' or 'wet land', the application if any preferred, is to be considered under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, so as to enable the party to make use of the property for other appropriate purpose.

¶45

In the said circumstances, the first respondent is directed to finalize the proceedings pursuant to Ext. P4 representation preferred by the petitioner under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, in the light of the decisions cited supra and Ext.

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 14683 of 2013

¶47

: 3 :

¶48

P3 report of the 3^rd respondent. The proceedings as above shall be finalized in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶49

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶50

Sd/ -

¶51

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶52

kmd

K.P. Ramanunni v. Revenue Dsivisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P. Ramanunni v. Revenue Dsivisional 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

State of Kerala Vs P.J.Jose

M/S. Yamuna Roller Flour Mills (P) Limited Vs the General Manager

Muhammed Muneer Vs State of Kerala

O. Gopakumar Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

K.K.Shaji Vs the District Collector

M.M. Abdul Basheer Vs the District Registrar (General)