Disposed

Thressiamma Varghese v. Village Officer,Kurichi Village Office

Kerala HC18 Sept 2014WP(C)/3113/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought permission to utilise reclaimed land for non-agricultural purposes. Court directed District Collector to consider application under Kerala Land Utilisation Order and pass appropriate orders granting permission after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to make application within two weeks; District Collector to consider and pass orders within one month of receipt of copy of judgment after hearing.

Thressiamma Varghese Vs Village Officer,Kurichi Village Office — 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

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/27TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).NO. 3113 OF 2014 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THRESSIAMMA VARGHESE, AGED 64 YEARS W/O.SRI.K.F.VARGHESE, KALLUMADICKAL, KURICHY P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 532 REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.F.VARGHESE AGED 65 YEARS, KALLUMADICKAL, KURUCHY P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 532.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU VARGHESE (SR.)

¶9

SRI.C.V.ALEXANDER SRI.V.NARAYANA SWAMI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. VILLAGE OFFICER, KURICHY VILLAGE OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN: 686 532.

¶12

2. TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, CHANGANACHERRY - 686 101.

¶13

3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM, PIN: 686 002.

¶14

4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN: 686 002.

¶15

5. COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, MUSEUM THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM - 695 033.

¶16

6. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶17

R1 TO R6 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.SOYUZ

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP(C).NO. 3113 OF 2014 (L)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXT.P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION APPEARED THE GAZETTE VOL. NO.LVII, GAZETTE NO.595/05/GP 69 DATED 24/3/2012.
EXT.P1(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KURICHI.
EXT.P2(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE BASIC TAXES REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KURICHI.
EXT.P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FAIR VALUE REGISTER IN RESPECT OF KURICHI VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK.
EXT.P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 11/11/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/11/2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E5-15543/13 DATED 7/12/2013 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NO.G-6759/13 DATED 9/12/2013 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E9(2) - 83082/2013 DATED 21/12/2013 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 2/1/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXT.P10:	TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KURICHY.
EXT.P11:	PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER WITH FULLY GROWN UP COCONUT TREES.
EXT.P11(A):	PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WITH HOUSE IN SURVEY NO.252/11.
EXT.P11(B):	PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE PROPERTY WITH HOUSE IN SURVEY NO.252/9.

¶24

WP(C).NO. 3113 OF 2014 (L)

¶25

EXT.P11(C): PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE GODOWN OPPOSITE THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PANCHAYATH ROAD.

¶26

EXT.P11(D): PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTY AND THE PANCHAYATH ROAD LEADING TO THE MAIN CENTRAL ROAD (M.C. ROAD)-A KSRTC FAST PASSENGER IS SEEN PLAYING ON THE M.C. ROAD.

¶27

EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.LRA4-8808/2012, DATED 19.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶33

= = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.3113 of 2014-L.

¶34

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

¶35

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2014.

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The petitioner is the owner of 12.5 Ares (30 cents) of

¶38

land in survey No.252/10 in Block 2 of Kurichy village in Kottayam district. Admittedly this property is not included in the Draft Data Bank and was reclaimed before Act 28 of 2008. Ext.P6 issued by the Tahsildar to the Revenue Divisional Officer would indicate that this property was reclaimed long before.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for a declaration from this Court in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and another (2014 (1) KLT 161), to effectuate changes in the Basic Tax Register as the properties have been reclaimed long before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short the “Act 28 of 2008”). It is further submitted, without

¶40

WP(C).No.3113/2014-L.

¶41

¶42

prejudice to the petitioners' right as above, for seeking a declaration, the petitioners are entitled to convert or utilise the above land for any other purposes other than for cultivating food crops, as these properties are no longer fit for any cultivation.

¶43

The Collector has power under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short, the “KLUO”) to grant permission to utilise such land for any other purposes. The Collector is defined under clause 2(a) of the KLUO which includes the Revenue Divisional Officer as well. Though the properties are reclaimed before the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008, nevertheless, if the land in question was under cultivation with any food crop either three years prior to the commencement of the KLUO or after its commencement, permission from the Collector is necessary for utilising the above land for any other purposes. This Court in Praveen K. v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others (2010 (2) KHC 499) held as follows:

¶44

WP(C).No.3113/2014-L.

¶45

¶46

“If an application is made under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the same is not liable to be dismissed before an enquiry is held by the concerned authority under the Act and a finding is entered that the land in respect of which the application is made is a paddy land or a wetland. If the land is not found to be paddy land or wetland, application has to be considered as per the provisions of the KLU.”

¶47

In Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham (2012 (4) KLT 511) another Division Bench of this Court held that permission under clause 6 can be granted for construction of building for industrial purposes also. In Praveen's case (supra) also this Court laid down the manner in which an application under clause 6 of the KLUO has to be dealt with by the Collector.

¶48

This Court in Joseph John v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2014(1) KLT 706) held that reclamation of the land is not a bar in considering the application under the Land Utilisation Order. I am of the view this is a fit case

¶49

WP(C).No.3113/2014-L.

¶50

¶51

where power can be exercised by the District Collector for permitting the petitioner to utilise the land for other purposes. In view of the above, if the petitioner makes an application for utilising the land for other purposes under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment the same shall be considered by the fourth respondent in the light of the decision referred above and pass appropriate orders permitting the petitioner to utilise that land for other purposes within one month thereafter, after affording an opportunity to hear the petitioner also.

¶52

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶53

Sd/A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, (Judge)

¶54

Kvs/-

¶55

// true copy //

Thressiamma Varghese v. Village Officer,Kurichi Village Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thressiamma Varghese v. Village Officer,Kurichi Village Office

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.Cochin Air Cargo Clearing House Vs Commissioner of Customs, Thiruvananthapuram

Star Health & Allied Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Sebastian Joseph

Sreedharan Pillai Vs the Assistant Environmental Engineer

All Kerala Fruit Merchants Association Vs State of Kerala

Bindu.M. Philip George Vs State of Kerala

Sujith N. Kamath Vs State of Kerala