Allowed

John Philip v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jun 2014WP(C)/6910/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed to restrain respondents from invoking powers under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 regarding trespasses on petitioner's land. The petition was allowed in light of a letter by the third respondent admitting the mistake and agreeing to restore the varamba.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of as an agreement of the third respondent to rectify the mistake and restore the varamba.

John Philip Vs the 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.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2014/12TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).NO. 6910 OF 2014 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JOHN PHILIP, AGED 57 YEARS, SON OF O.J. PHILIP, RESIDING AT OTTAPLACKAL, PUTHUPALLY, KOTTAYAM -686 010.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶11

2. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, PUTHUPALLY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT 2008, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, ERAVINALLOOR, PUTHUPALLY, KOTTAYAM - 686 011.

¶12

3. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, ERAVINALLOOR, PUTHUPALLY, KOTTAYAM - 686 011.

¶13

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE, PUTHUPPALLY POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 011.

¶14

5. THE PRESIDENT, THE PUTHUPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUTHUPPALLY POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 011.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. VINCENT.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

WP(C).NO. 6910 OF 2014 (K)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXHIBIT-P1-	TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 493 OF 1991 DATED 11/04/1991 OF THE PUTHUPPALLY SRO.
EXHIBIT-P2-	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. 5400270 DATED 08/08/2013 ISSUED BY THE PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE OFFICE
EXHIBIT-P3-	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED 28/02/2014
EXHIBIT-P4-	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 03/03/2014 RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P5-	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 03/03/2014 RECEIVED FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P6-	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 03/03/2014 RECEIVED FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7-	TRUE COPY OF THE LETER DATED 07/03/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE CONVENOR, NALUTHODINAKAM NADUMPAADOM PAADASHEKHARAM.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.M. Shaffique, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶28

W.P(C) No. 6910 of 2014

¶29

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2^nd day of June, 2014.

¶30

Petitioner has approached this Court to restrain respondents 2 and 3 from invoking power under Sections 15 and 16 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. When the petitioner wanted to carry on agricultural operations in his land, it was found that respondents 2 and 3 had trespassed into the petitioner's property without notice and started proceedings for cultivating the said land with paddy and has also demolished the varamba, which separated the petitioner's property with other fields.

¶31

During the pendency of the writ petition, the 3^rd respondent had informed the petitioner by way of Ext. P7 that they have committed a mistake in identifying the property and they never intended to have any cultivation in the petitioner's property. They have also agreed to restore the varamba to the original position.

¶32

In the light of the fact that the 3^rd respondent has issued Ext. P7, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no further directions are required in the light of Ext. P7.

¶33

In the said circumstances, taking on record Ext. P7 as

¶34

W.P(C) No. 6910 of 2014 -: 2 :-

¶35

an agreement of the 3^rd respondent to rectify the mistake committed by them, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶36

Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.

¶37

Tds/

John Philip v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Philip v. the 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

Unnikrishnan Vs the District Collector

Dr.R.Gopinathan Vs State Information Commission

Davis Vs the District Collector

Kerala Bottled Water Manufactures Association Vs the Secretary, Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies

P.D.Saji Vs the Tahsildar

Shafeek M.M. Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education (Regional Office)