Remanded

Sebastin Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Sept 2013WP(C)/16751/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order directing petitioners to restore allegedly reclaimed paddy land. The High Court of Kerala set aside the order, finding it unsustainable and conflicting with prior evidence. It directed the respondent to reconsider the matter via a speaking order within two months after fresh inquiry and hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P7 order set aside; respondent directed to reconsider matter via speaking order within two months after fresh inquiry and hearing.

Sebastin Joseph Vs State of Kerala — 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 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/14TH BHADRA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 16751 of 2013 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/

¶7

1. SEBASTIAN JOSEPH, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(HUMAN RESOURCES), NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI, FLAT NO.402, 20-D, A S ROAD, BOMBAY-400076 REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, T.J.RAJAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.LATE JOSEPH RESIDING AT 32/1608, THODATHUSSERY HOUSE PALLISSERY ROAD, PALARIVATOM.P.O, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-6820-25.

¶8

2. SON XAVIER, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.P.M.XAVIER, PALIYIL PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE, MANJOOR.P.O, PIN-686693, KOTHANELLOOR VILLAGE,VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER T.J.RAJAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.LATE JOSEPH RESIDING AT 32/1608, THODATHUSSERY HOUSE PALLISSERY ROAD, PALARIVATTOM.P.O, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-682025.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT ANNEX, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶12

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030.

¶13

3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHERANALLUR.P.O, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN-682034.

¶14

4. CHERANALLUR PANCHAYATH, CHERANALLUR.P.O, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682034, REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

tss

¶18

WP(C).No. 16751 of 2013 (T)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3084/2012 DATED 26.07.2012 ERNAKULAM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE IN FAVOUR OF IST PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.3695881 DATED 29.09.2012 FOR RS.10/ISSUED BY COCHIN CORPORATION TO THE 2ND PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE

¶23

EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE N,O.4835/P12/2013/GCDA DTD 21.06.2013 ISSUED BY GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO THE 2ND PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES OF DIVINE NAGAR RESIDENTIAL COLONY.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 26.03.2013 FILED BY THE IST PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 26.03.2013 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P7 TYPED COPY OF ORDER NO.L-10-9391/13 DATED 27.05.2013 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.C.No.16751 OF 2013

¶36

Dated this the 05^th day of September, 2013.

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioners are challenging Ext.P7 order dated 27.05.2013 passed by the 2^nd respondent, whereby the petitioners have been required to restore the property concerned, to the position as it exist earlier, invoking the power and provisions Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008; stating that illegal reclamation of paddy land has been effected by the petitioners.

¶39

The case of the petitioners is that, the property concerned was purchased by the 1^st petitioner and his wife as per Ext.P1 Sale Deed bearing No.3084/2012 dated 26.07.2012 of the S.R.O., Ernakulam and they were enjoying the same as above. Similarly, the neighbouring property was purchased by the 2^nd petitioner and his wife and they are also enjoying the same with absolute ownership, exclusive possession and clear and markable

¶40

¶41

W.P.C.No.16751 OF 2013

¶42

title. According to the petitioners, the above properties are in the midst of a residential colony and a lot of improvements and residential buildings have come up nearby. The property was never cultivated with paddy for decades and it is shown as a 'residential zone', even in Ext.P3 structural plan.

¶43

In spite of the factual position as above, illegal reclamation of the land was alleged against the petitioners, based on false complaints and wrong reports, leading to issuance of Ext.P7 order, which in turn is under challenge.

¶44

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶45

Going by the pleadings and proceedings, particularly the

¶46

certificate issued by the Greater Cochin Development Authority as borne by Ext.P3, the photographs produced as Ext.P4 and also the various reports obtained by the 2^nd respondent as discussed in Ext.P7, this Court finds that there is considerable force in the submissions made from the part of the petitioners; especially as to the physical nature of the property. The discussion of the factual position and various reports, of course, has been done by

¶47

¶48

W.P.C.No.16751 OF 2013

¶49

the 2^nd respondent in Ext.P7 and all these aspects virtually weigh more in favour of the petitioner. However, in the 'penultimate paragraph' of Ext.P7, the 2^nd respondent simply takes a 'somersault' to observe that the hearing held on 26.08.2013 revealed that the property had been unauthorisedly reclaimed and hence ordered to be restored, invoking the power under Section 13. The 'finding' rendered by the 2^nd respondent vide Ext.P7 does not reconcile with the 'reasoning' and the factual data discussed in Ext.P7. This Court does not find any second thought to hold that Ext.P7 is per se wrong and unsustainable in all respects and that the matter requires to be reconsidered by passing a 'speaking order' with reference to the actual facts and figures. This is more so, in view of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court Praveen Vs. Land Revenue

¶50

Commissioner 2010(2) KLT 617 .

¶51

in the said circumstances, Ext.P7 is set aside and the 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter after calling for reports from the concerned authorities to ascertain the physical

¶52

¶53

W.P.C.No.16751 OF 2013

¶54

nature of the property and also after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. This exercise shall be completed in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶55

Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petitioner before the 2^nd respondent for further

¶56

steps.

¶57

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶58

Sebastin Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sebastin Joseph v. State of Kerala

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

Chinnamma Joseph Vs District Collector

Sivaraman Vs Anil Kumar Agarwal

Krishnankutty Nair Vs District Collector

U.Kunhiraman Vs District Collector

Raveendranath Vs the Tahasildar

Yesudas Vs the District Collector