This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging orders under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, regarding the illegal conversion of paddy land. The court held that the orders were based on sufficient materials.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/28TH KARTHIKA, 1937
WP(C).No.10293 OF 2013(J)
PETITIONER:
GEORGE KUTTY AGED 50 YEARS
KANNAMBALIL THEKKETHIL, KARUMULAKKAL MURI, CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
WP(C) No.10293/2013
-:2:-
6 VILLAGE OFFICER CHUNAKKARA, MAVELIKKARA-690534.
7 MANMADHAN NAIR ADARSH BHAVANAM, KARUMULAKKAL, CHUNAKKARA, MAVELIKKARA-690534.
8 DAVID JOSHUA VARIKKOLIL THARAYIL, CHUNAKKARA, MAVELIKKARA690534.(ADDRESS OF R8 CORRECTED AS DAVID JOSHUA, VARIKKOLIL THEKKETHIL, KARIMULACKAL, KOMALLOOR P.O., CHARUMOODU (VIA), ALAPPUZHA - 690 505. AS PER ORDER DATED 27.08.2013 IN IA 10292/2013)
9 SOMAN NAIR
KALEEKKAL THEKKETHIL, CHUNAKKARA, MAVELIKKARA690534. (ADDRESS OF R9 CORRECTED AS SOMAN NAIR, KALEEKKAL THEKKETHIL, KARIMULACKAL, KOMALLOOR P.O., CHARUMOODU (VIA), ALAPPUZHA - 690 505 AS PER ORDER DATED 27.08.2013 IN IA 10292/2013)
R1-R6 RY BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA R7 BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.T.K.SANDEEP SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (MULLAKKARIYIL) SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.11.2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.10293/2013
-:3:-
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P4 and P6 orders passed by the District Collector and Government respectively under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as '2008 Act').
WP(C) No.10293/2013
-:4:-
to the respondent authorities, the property was in a reclaimed state at the time when an inspection was conducted during 2012.
WP(C) No.10293/2013
-:5:-
petitioner had reclaimed the land and the same is causing threat
to the nearby paddy cultivation. It is stated that Exts.P4 and P6 had been issued based on clear facts and there is no illegality in the said orders. As far as the existence of rubber and coconut palms are concerned, it is stated that all the adjacent property owners are cultivating paddy and contrary allegation against the 7th respondent was baseless. Respondents also produced Ext.R7(a) series of photographs to show the paddy cultivation in the area.
WP(C) No.10293/2013
-:6:-
submit that the report obtained by the Collector as well as the Government clearly indicates the existence of rubber trees which are about one year old and coconut palms which are about five years old which indicates that atleast the coconut plants were in existence during 2007, as the report is seen prepared in 2012. The age of the trees is only an approximate estimate and it cannot be the basis for taking a contention that the property involved has been converted before the 2008 Act coming into force. It is apparent from the data bank entries that the property was lying as a paddy field and unless the same is corrected, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the property was not paddy land at the relevant time, when the 2008 Act came into force.
WP(C) No.10293/2013
-:7:-
Collector under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, it has to be assumed that the property has to be treated as a category as mentioned in the data bank entries until it is corrected.
it is based on materials and nothing has been produced to indicate that the materials relied upon are either irrelevant and findings thereon are illegal in any manner. Under such circumstances, I do not find any error in Exts.P4 and P6 orders. For that reason, the writ petition has to fail and accordingly it is dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner however seeks time to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee for making change of entry in the data bank particulars. It is always open for the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law and no such direction is required to be passed in this writ petition.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
Rp
True Copy
JUDGE
PS to Judge
WP(C) No.10293/2013
-:8:-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COY OF SALE DEED NO. 581/07 OF CHERIYANADU SRO DATED 17-04-2007.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 397/09 OF CHERIYANADU SRO DATED 09-03-2009. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 12-10-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. C8-29643/2011 DATED 18-10-2011 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.NO. 101/2013/AGRICULTURE DATED 21-01-2013 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 SERIES A TRUE SET OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER THE CARE OF 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 SERIES A TRUE SET OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PROPERTY OF 8TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 SERIES A TRUE SET OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PROPERTY OF 9TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION UNDER THE RTI ACT DATED 21-11-2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE AGRICULTURE OFFICE, CHUNAKKARA.
WP(C) No.10293/2013
-:9:-
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 17-12-2011 GIVEN BY THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. REESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R7(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R7(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 1.7.2013 FROM THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN, CHUNAKKARA UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
True Copy
PS to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the orders impugned were passed without reliance on sufficient materials warranting judicial interference.
Whether the petitioner had illegally converted paddy land to dry land after the 2008 Act came into force.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
George Kutty
State of Kerala
District Collector Alappuzha
Revenue Divisional Officer Chengannur
Tahsildar Taluk Office Mavelikkara
Agricultural Officer Chunakkara
A.M. SHAFFIQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
