Disposed

K.K.Shaji v. the District Collector

Kerala HC1 Oct 2013WP(C)/17835/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that since the petitioners' land was acquired after Act 28 of 2008 commenced, the issue of land classification is a matter for fact adjudication. Petitioners were directed to approach the District Collector within two weeks for a fact-report determination under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, with proceedings to conclude within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach the District Collector within two weeks for a fact report regarding land classification under the Kerala Land Utilization Order.

K.K.Shaji Vs the District Collector — 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. 17835 of 2013 (D)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. K.K.SHAJI,

¶8

S/O.LATE K.K. KUMARAN,

¶9

KUZHIKKATTU HOUSE, ADARSHA ROAD,

¶10

C.S.E.Z P.O, KOCHI-37.

¶11

2. A.K. NAZAR,

¶12

S/O.KOCHUMOHAMMED, PUNNANKULANGARA, AMBADIMOOLA,

¶13

KAKKANADU P.O, KOCHI-682 037.

¶14

3. K.T. PRAKASHAN,

¶15

S/O.K.K THANKAPPAN,

¶16

KALANGATTU HOUSE, KAKKANADU,

¶17

KOCHI-30.

¶18

BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH, SMT.SMITHA GEORGE, SMT.AMMU CHARLES.

¶19

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶20

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD-682 030.

¶21

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682 001.

¶22

3. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM- 682 011.

¶23

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶24

VILLAGE OFFICE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030.

¶25

BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (REVENUE) SRI. P.K. SOYUZ.

¶26

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

¶27

Prv.

¶28

W.P.(C).NO.17835/2013-D:

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXT.P1:TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DTD. 13/6/2013 BY THE IST PETITIONER. EXT.P1(A):TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DTD. -6-2013 BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P1(B):TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 13/6/2013.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE:

¶33

ANNEXURE R4.A: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioners is in respect of inaction on the part of the 3^rd respondent in dealing with Ext. P1 series applications preferred for effecting necessary corrections in the BTR as to the physical nature of the property concerned, which according to the petitioners is dry land/reclaimed land and never a 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as envisaged under Act 28 of 2008.

¶42

A statement has been filed by the 4^th respondent pointing out that different items of properties were purchased by the petitioners as per relevant deeds of conveyances registered before the SRO Thrikkakara and that the said properties are clearly shown as 'Nilam' in the BTR as well. Copy of the relevant pages of Draft Data Bank has produced as Annexure R4(a) wherein the nature of the property is shown as 'paddy land'. The learned Special Government Pleader submits, with reference to the contents of Ext. P1 series representations, that the petitioners themselves have conceded that the concerned properties were purchased only in the year 2008 and onwards and it was thereafter, that a portion of the

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 17835 of 2013

¶44

: 2 :

¶45

properties was filled up by dumping earth therein. This being the position, the alleged conversion/reclamation is only after commencement of the Act and as such, the petitioners are not entitled to have any relief.

¶46

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that a fact adjudication is necessary at the hands of the competent authority, to ascertain whether the land in question was a 'paddy land' as defined under section 2 (xii) of the Act 28 of 2008, on the date of commencement of the Act. If not, the proceedings have to be finalized with reference to the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. It has been declared by a Division Bench of this Court in Praveen Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT 617) that, if the property concerned is not a 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as defined under the Act 28 of 2008, 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.

¶47

In the above circumstances, the petitioners are relegated to approach the first respondent by filing necessary application in this regard within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; upon which, the same shall be considered by the first

¶48

W.P.(C) No. 17835 of 2013

¶49

: 3 :

¶50

respondent in accordance with law, also with reference to relevant records including the version of the petitioners themselves in Ext. P1 series representation preferred before 3^rd respondent. The proceedings as above shall be finalized, after giving an opportunity of hearing, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months thereafter.

¶51

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

¶52

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶55

kmd

K.K.Shaji v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Shaji 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

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.P. Ramanunni Vs Revenue Dsivisional Officer

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