Disposed

Abdul Latheef v. District Collector, Kozhikode

Kerala HC27 Mar 2015WP(C)/601/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding land classification and Right to Information, the High Court held that since the Supreme Court barred correction of the Block Land Register, the petitioner should file an application under the Kerala Land Utilization Order 1967 for a spot inspection rather than seeking direct writ relief. The petition was disposed of with liberty to apply.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner set at liberty to file application under KLU Order; writ petition disposed.

Abdul Latheef Vs District Collector, Kozhikode — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/6TH CHAITHRA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 601 of 2015 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.MOOSA HAJI, EDAVALATH, P.O.ATHOLI (VIA)KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 315.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN

¶9

SMT.THUSHARA.V

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:-:

¶11

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, COLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 001.

¶12

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 001 .

¶13

VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶14

CHEMANJERI VILLAGE, POST ATHOLI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN - 673 315.

¶15

THE SECRETARY, CHEMANJERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POST CHEMANJERI KOYILANDI VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 315.

¶16

Addl.5. THE CONVENER

¶17

LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (UNDER WET LAND ACT) CHEMANJERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT (AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, CHEMANJERI), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PINCODE - 673 315, IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.03.2015 IN IA 3507/15.

¶18

R4 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P R4 BY ADV. SMT.REKHA ARAVIND R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 601 of 2015 (A)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED JANMAM ASSIGNMENT DEED WITH NO.444/1/2011 OF S.R.O, CHEMANCHERY, IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P1(a). TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED JANMAM ASSIGNMENT DEED WITH NO.1881/2009 OF S.R.O, CHEMANCHERY.

¶25

EXHIBIT P1(b). TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED JANMAM ASSIGNMENT DEED WITH NO.1615/2007 OF S.R.O, CHEMANCHERY.

¶26

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN FROM THE SCENE.

¶27

EXHIBIT P-2(a). TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN FROM THE SCENE.

¶28

EXHIBIT P-2(b). TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN FROM THE SCENE.

¶29

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE NEIGHBOURING HOUSE OWNER.

¶30

EXHIBIT P-3(a). TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE NEIGHBOURING HOUSE OWNER.

¶31

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GATHERED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION FOR RECLASSIFICATION PENDING BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON ENQUIRY ON THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF LAND.

¶34

EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.11.2.2015 PENDING BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK REGISTER PREPARED FOR CHEMANJERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶36

EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER GIVEN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR THE QUESTION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶37

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

// TRUE COPY //

PA TO JUDGE

dl/

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 601 of 2015

¶44

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶47

prayers :

¶48

i) Issue a writ of mandamus and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to effect necessary changes in the records maintained by them correcting the classification of the land covered by Ext. P1 as garden land on the basis of factual assessment that, conversion of the land was done around fifty years prior to the date of wet land Act came into force in 2008, allowing the application pending before 2^nd respondent as file No. H 10165/2014

¶49

ii) Direct the 4th respondent to permit the petitioner for construction of residential house, in the property, covered by Exhibit P1, basis on the actual lie of the land, without considering the entries in the revenue records holding the wet land act is not applicable to the property covered by Exhibit P1.

¶50

iii) Declare that, the property covered by Exhibit P1 is not included in the data bank prepared under wet land Act 2008.

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 601 of 2015

¶52

: 2 :

¶53

iv) Issue such other writ or directions which this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass in the circumstances of the case.

¶54

The case of the petitioner is that the property covered by

¶55

Ext. P1 series is neither a 'paddy land', nor a 'wet land' as defined under Section 2 (xii) or 2 (xviii) of Act 28 of 2008. The petitioner is enjoying the said property also satisfying tax. The property however stands described as 'nilam' in the revenue records, which was sought to be corrected by filing an application, but the same was rejected. The petitioner obtained information under the RTI Act from the 3^rd respondent, vide Ext. P5, whereby it was informed that there was no enabling provision to redress the grievance of the petitioner by effecting correction in the 'BTR'. It is stated that Ext. P6 report of the Village Officer would reveal the actual nature of the property, which is sought to be substantiated with reference to Ext. P2 photographs.

¶56

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶57

A Division Bench of this Court as per the decision reported

¶58

in 2014 (1) KLT 161 [Revenue Divisional Officer VS. Jalaja

¶59

Dileep] held that Revenue Authorities could effect necessary changes in the 'BTR', on the basis of physical nature of the property

¶60

W.P.(C) No. 601 of 2015

¶61

: 3 :

¶62

concerned. But the State, on approaching the Apex Court, the verdict passed in 2014 (1) KLT 161 (cited supra) came to be set aside as per the decision rendered in Revenue Divisional Officer

¶63

Vs. Jalaja Dileep [2015 (1) KLT 984 (SC)], holding that 'BTR' cannot be corrected. However, the Apex Court made it clear that , if the property is not included in the Data Bank as “Paddy Land” or “Wetland” as defined under the Act 28 of 2008, it is still governed by the provisions of K.L.U. Order 1967 and that in such circumstances, the grievance is to be considered with reference to the relevant provisions of the KLU Order.

¶64

In the above circumstances, the petitioner is set at liberty to file an application under the KLU Order before the first respondent. If any such application is filed within two weks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the first respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law, in the light of Ext.P6, also after getting a report from the addl. 5^th respondent/Local Level Monitoring Committee after conducting a spot inspection with notice to the petitioner. The proceedings as above shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶65

W.P.(C) No. 601 of 2015

¶66

: 4 :

¶67

judgment.

¶68

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.

¶69

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶72

kmd

Abdul Latheef v. District Collector, Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Latheef v. District Collector, Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bindu C. Nair Vs Dr. Viswas Metha

K.S. Ramachandran @ Ksr Chandran Vs District Collector

K.O.Abraham Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Dharmarajan Vs K Muraleedharan

Jinu Kandathil Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Wilson Vs District Collector