Disposed

Sainaba v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Nov 2013WP(C)/9933/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Bench disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner challenged the classification of her dry land as 'Nilam' despite improvements. The Court exempted adjudication and directed the petitioner to apply to the Local Level Monitoring Committee within two weeks for site inspection and reclassification per the Kerala Land Utilization Order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file application before Local Level Monitoring Committee within two weeks; court to dispose within one month.

Sainaba 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/22ND KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 9933 of 2013 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SAINABA, D/O. KURIKKAL KUNJU MOIDEEN, PULLYANCHALI HOUSE, KARUVAMBARAM AMSOM, MELAKKAM DESOM, P.O. KARUVAMBRAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶12

3. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, MANJERI-676 123.

¶13

4. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MINI CIVIL STATION, MANJERI-676 505.

¶14

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, NARUKARA VILLAGE-676 123.

¶15

*ADDL. R.6. IMPLEADED:

¶16

6.THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CONVENER, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM. PIN -676 123.

¶17

*IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.11.2013 IN I.A.NO.14705/2013.

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.A. SANJEETHA.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Prv.

¶21

W.P.(C).NO.9933/2013-N:

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXHIBIT P1PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 8-3-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE:

¶27

ANNEXURE R3.(a): RELEVANT PAGE OF DRAFT DATA BANK.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶32

======================== W.P.(C). No. 9933 of 2013

¶33

¶34

Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2013

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner is the owner of the property having an extent of 25.10 cents of land in Sy.No. 63/1 of Narukara Village in Ernad Taluk, Malappuram District. She acquired the property as per registered document No. 4784/2012 of the Sub Registry, Manjery. There are a lot of improvements, such as arecanut palms and such other trees of 32 to 35 years old in the said property. Buildings have been constructed in the nearby property with the permission of the competent authority. According to the petitioner, the said property 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, despite which it has been described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation before the 3^rd respondent to make necessary corrections in the BTR, which is still pending consideration and hence the writ petition.

¶37

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who

¶38

submits that the Local Level Monitoring Committee can consider the matter, as the property is not included in the Data Bank Register.

¶39

W.P.C. No. 9933 of 2013

¶40

-2-

¶41

The Local Level Monitoring Committee has been impleaded as the additional 6^th respondent as per order dated 7.11.2013 in I.A.No. 14705/2013. In the said circumstance, the

¶42

petitioner is relegated to approach the additional 6^th respondent with necessary application for the redressal of the grievance. If any such application is filed by the petitioner before the additional 6^th respondent within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the said respondent shall conduct a site inspection with notice to the petitioner so as to ascertain whether the reclamation, if any, was effected prior to the commencement of Act 28 of 2008. The application to be filed as above 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.

¶43

v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram &

¶44

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 Karala Land Utilization Order, so as to

¶45

W.P.C. No. 9933 of 2013

¶46

-3-

¶47

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.

¶48

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the additional 6^th respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶49

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶50

kp/-

Sainaba v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sainaba 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

M/S.Sowil Ltd. through Its Secretary Vs Mr.Prabhakaran P.K.

Santhakumari Amma Vs Alex Joseph

Jidheesh Joshi Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Usha Perinkatath Vs Tahasildar, Thalassery Taluk

T.R.Sivasankaran Vs the Banking Ombudsman

Salim K.M. Vs District Collector, Trichur