Allowed

Chinnu Abraham v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Dec 2014WP(C)/14142/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner challenged proceedings to restore land under the Kerala Farm Ponds Act, 2008. The court set aside the impugned orders finding the petitioner successfully demonstrated the property was converted as dry land before the Act's enactment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders initiated under Act 28 of 2008 were set aside and the Writ Petition was disposed of.

Chinnu Abraham Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 14142 of 2014 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

CHINNU ABRAHAM, PALLIYAMPIL KUNNATH MANNIL, WEST OTHARA P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY

¶10

SRI.T.SANJAY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETRY/

¶15

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER,

¶16

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT,

¶17

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶18

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶19

COLLECTORATE , PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 645.

¶20

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA,PIN 689 101.

¶21

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶22

ERAVIPEROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 542.

¶23

5. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,

¶24

KRISHI BHAVAN, ERAVIPEROOR, PIN - 689 542.

¶25

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.R.RAJESH

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶27

08-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

msv/

¶29

WP(C).No. 14142 of 2014 (P)

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶32

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER ERAVIPEROOR DATED 4/4/2012 AND LOCATION SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.

¶33

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK SUPPLEMENTARY LIST IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.

¶34

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 21/11/2012 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C4/36104/12 DATED 31/1/2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12/2/2013 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶37

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.5476/NCA3/2013/AD DATED 12/3/2013 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT TO RESPONDENTS NOS 2,3 AND 5.

¶38

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.C4-36104/12 DATED 3/8/2013 ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA TO IST RESPONDENT.

¶39

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.622/12/A3 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT 24/8/2013 TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶40

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND PLAN NO.EVR 60/13-14 DATED 11/10/2013 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶41

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK SUPPLEMENTARY LIST AND REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE DATED 6/9/2013 AND MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE DATED 3/10/2013.

¶42

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE OPINION NO. 25253/D2/13/LAW ISSUED BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶43

EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 5476/NCA3/13/AD ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶44

EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4/4/2014 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶45

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S0.TO JUDGE

Ms v/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶51

= = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.14142 of 2014-P.

¶52

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶53

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2014.

¶54

J U D G M E N T

¶55

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging

¶56

Exts.P4 and P13 proceedings initiated under the Act 28 of 2008 for restoration of the land to its original position. It is found that the petitioner has reclaimed the land in contravention of Act 28 of 2008. The petitioner's case is that this property is reclaimed land before Act 28 of 2008 and by appearance this property can be treated as dry land.

¶57

In the matter a counter-affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. It is stated that as per the draft data bank an extent of 1.10.80 Hectares of wetland in Survey No.234/2 of Eraviperoor Village was converted as dry land before 12.8.2008. It is also submitted that in the draft data bank the property is shown as nilam and was converted as nilam in the draft data bank. In the counteraffidavit filed before this Court the second respondent has

¶58

WP(C).No.14142/2014-P.

¶59

¶60

no case that this property is classified as nilam or wet land. On the other hand it is seen from the counter-affidavit this

¶61

property was converted before Act 28 of 2008. In view of the above the impugned orders are set aside.

¶62

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶63

Sd/A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, (Judge)

¶64

Kvs/-

¶65

// true copy //

Chinnu Abraham v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnu Abraham 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suhail T.S. Vs Vijaya Bank

C.K.Molamma Vs the Union of India

Khader Kunju K.M. Vs the District Collector

Aruna Kumar Vs Special Tahsildar, L.R.

Sakina Abdul Rahman Vs Medical Council of India

Shahul Hameed K.A. Vs District Collector, Kottayam