Remanded

V.K. Thomas v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala

Kerala HC2 Sept 2013WP(C)/16419/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the rejection of a request to raise the property level for rubber replantation, the Court set aside the Revenue Divisional Officer's order. The Court directed the respondent to reconsider the application in light of the Local Level Monitoring Committee's finding that the property is dry land, within two months.

What did the court decide?

Ext. P5 order set aside; first respondent directed to reconsider Ext. P3 application within two months.

V.K. Thomas Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala — 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

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/11TH BHADRA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 16419 of 2012 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER : -

¶7

V.K. THOMAS, S/O. KURUVILA, VAZHUTHANAPPILLIL, KURAVILANGAD P.O., THOTTUVA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN

¶9

RESPONDENTS : -

¶10

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA, PIN - 686575.

¶11

THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686577.

¶12

ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED

¶13

ADDL. R3. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KOZHA, KURUVILANGAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686633. (ADDL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.08.12 IN IA NO.10496/12).

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SANJEETHA K.A.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 16419 of 2012 (B)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

EXT P1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 31.3.2007 ISSUED BY THE RUBBER BOARD.
EXT P2 :	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.3.12 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KURAVILANGAD.
EXT P3 :	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 28.3.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1^stRESPONDENT.
EXT P4 :	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR, MEENACHIL DATED 23.5.12.
EXT P5 :	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1^stRESPONDENT DATED 18.6.2012.
EXT P6 :	COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND.
EXT P7 :	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 28.7.12 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ADDL. 3^rdRESPONDENT.
EXT P8 :	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 2.11.12 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2^ndRESPONDENT.
EXT P9 :	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 08.05.2013 OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶24

¶25

¶26

Dated, this the 2^nd day of September, 2013

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner is challenging Ext. P5 order passed by the first respondent declining the request made by him, vide Ext. P3, for sanction to raise the level of the property for making it suitable for replantation of rubber, based on Ext. P1 permit given by the Rubber Board.

¶29

The case of the petitioner is that, when the petitioner was pursuing the operation as above, somebody having personal animosity, filed a complaint against the petitioner. Pursuant to the complaint, Ext. P2 order was passed by the Village Officer on 23.02.2012, which made the petitioner to approach the first respondent by filing Ext. P3 request. The Addl. Tahasildar submitted Ext. P4 report dated 23.05.2012 pointing out the actual facts and figures and also as to the nature of the property as 'dry land'. However, without any regard to the said report and without proper application of mind, the claim was rejected by the first respondent as per Ext. P5, which made the petitioner to approach this

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 16419 of 2012

¶31

: 2 :

¶32

Court also producing Ext. P6 photographs showing the lie and nature of the land.

¶33

When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 01.05.2012 an interim order was passed in the following terms :

¶34

“Admit. Urgent notice to all the respondents.

¶35

The petitioner's case is that Ext. P4 report of the Tahasildar will show that the property is already a converted land having various cultivations other than paddy namely, rubber. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext. P5 communications of the Revenue Divisional Officer pointing out that the property is shown as Nilam in the revenue records and the Data Bank also, the same entry is made.

¶36

The petitioner has filed a representation before the Agricultural Officer pointing out the above aspects and to make appropriate corrections in the entry in the Data Bank. It is up to the Local Level Monitoring Committee to consider the same.

¶37

Therefore, there will be a direction to the additional 3rd respondent to place the application before the Local Level Monitoring Committee for consideration and an appropriate decision will be taken within a period of

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 16419 of 2012

¶39

: 3 :

¶40

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner will produce a copy of this order for compliance.

¶41

Hand over.”

¶42

Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner approached the Local Level Monitoring Committee, which came to an inference that the property is actually lying as 'dry land'. A copy of the minutes of the proceedings has been produced as Ext. P9.

¶43

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶44

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the first respondent in the light of Ext. P9 and such other materials on record. Accordingly, Ext. P5 will stand set aside and the first respondent is directed to reconsider Ext. P3 application in the light of Ext. P9 and the relevant provisions of KLU, also taking note of the observations made by this Court in the decision reported in Praveen Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617). The proceedings as above shall be finalized, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 16419 of 2012

¶46

: 4 :

¶47

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.

¶48

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶51

kmd

V.K. Thomas v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K. Thomas v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashraf Vs the District Collector,Kannur

Archana Varghese Vs Pallickal Grama Panchayat

Dr. K.N. Satish Vs the State of Kerala

M/S.Vallikatt Constructions Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Saju John Vs the District Collector

Heleena Vs the District Collector, Idukki