Petitioner challenged the 3rd respondent's refusal to include reclaimed land in the Data Bank, citing prior conversion. Court held the respondent must report unauthorised conversion made before 2008 to the 2nd respondent for action.
3rd respondent directed to report matter of unauthorised conversion (pre-2008) to 2nd respondent within two months.
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 K.HARILAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/13TH KARTHIKA, 1937
WP(C).NO. 1991 OF 2012 (Y)
PETITIONER:
T. VALSARAJAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, 'LAKSHMI', PULLUMKUNNU ROAD, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN
RESPONDENTS:
-------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, 673 020.
3. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REP BY IT'S CHAIRMAN, (PRESIDENT, RAMANATTUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH) RAMANATTUKARA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 633
4. SMT. RADHA BALAN, SI APPARTMENT, 6A GLANDANE POINT, SIVAPURI, BANK ROAD, NEAR FATHIMA HOSPITAL, KOZHIKODE, 670020.
5. RAMANATTUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP BY IT'S SECRETARY, RAMANATTUKARA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 633.
R3 & 5 BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RR4 BY ADV. SRI.SRINATH GIRISH RR4 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.VINAYAK PRATAP BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. T.J. MICHAEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).NO. 1991 OF 2012 (Y) ---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT R4(A): | COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.12.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 4THRESPONDENT BEFORE THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT. GOVT. OF KERALA. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT R4(B): | COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 396/2007, FEROKE, S.R.O., DATED 24.1.2007. |
| EXHIBIT R4(C): | COPY OF DOCKET NO. 397/2007, FEROKE, S.R.O., DATED 24.1.2007. |
| EXHIBIT R4(D): | COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO T.SHAREEF & OTHERS BY THE RAMANATTUKARA PANCHAYATH DATED 20.03.2004. //TRUE COPY// |
| P.A. TO JUDGE |
DST
K. HARILAL, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No.1991 of 2012
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of November, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, who is the owner in possession of 66¼ cents of paddy land in survey No.538/5 of Ramanattukara Village, is aggrieved by Ext.P11 decision of the 3rd respondent, not to include 1.37 acres of paddy land, which was converted in violation of the statutory provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet land Act, 2008 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and owned by the 4th respondent, in the Data Bank. Admittedly, the alleged reconversion was effected before 2008 and he has been legally fighting for the reconversion of the said land from 2000 onwards. By Ext.P5 order, the Government directed the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner after the final publication
W.P.(C) No. 1991 of 2012
-: 2 :-
of the Data Bank as per the Act. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent or 3rd respondent has not taken any action in compliance with the direction in Ext.P5 order, passed by the Government and aggrieved by the inaction, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25891/2011, seeking a direction to 2nd and 3rd respondents to take effective steps in compliance with the direction in Ext.P5 order. This Court directed the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action on Ext.P10 in that Writ Petition in terms of the provisions of Act 28 of 2008. In compliance with the said judgment, the 3rd respondent considered the matter and passed Ext.P11 order, stating that the disputed property is not a paddy land and the 4th respondent has reclaimed the said land, before the commencement of Act 28 of 2008; so, the 3rd respondent has no power to include the land, which was reclaimed before the commencement of the Act, into the Data Bank. The legality and propriety of the said
W.P.(C) No. 1991 of 2012
-: 3 :-
order is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
and the learned counsel for the respondents.
W.P.(C) No. 1991 of 2012
-: 4 :-
of the 3rd respondent that the property cannot be
included in the Data Bank as the same was reclaimed, before the commencement of Act 28 of 2008. According to the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the 3rd respondent in Ext.P11 Order.
W.P.(C) No. 1991 of 2012
-: 5 :-
as the convertion made before 2008 is a matter, which would come under the land utilisation Order. But, from the impugned Order, it is seen that the 3rd respondent has not made such a report to the 2nd respondent and instead, he has closed the proceedings there. I find that the 3rd respondent cannot be justified in closing the matter there, merely on the finding that the land in question is one, which was reclaimed before the commencement of Act 28 of 2008. So also, it is needless to say, on receipt of such a report from the 3rd respondent, it is obligatory on the part of the 2nd respondent to take action on the report in accordance with the provisions under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.
W.P.(C) No. 1991 of 2012
-: 6 :-
of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the 2nd
respondent shall take action on the report in accordance with the said law.
This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
K. HARILAL,
JUDGE
DST
//True copy//
P.A. To Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the 3rd respondent is justified in closing proceedings on the finding that disputed land was converted before the Act's commencement without reporting unauthorised conversion.
Whether the 3rd respondent is obligated to report land conversion made before 2008 to the 2nd respondent in compliance with Section 5(4)(iv) of the Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
T. Valsarajan
State of Kerala
Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode
Local Level Monitoring Committee
Radha Balan
Ramanattukara Grama Panchayat
K. HARILAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
