Disposed

Joseph Thomas v. Local Level Monitoring Committee

Kerala HC30 May 2016WP(C)/4171/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court directed the First Respondent to amend the Gazette notification to remove garden land from the Data Bank and initiated appropriate proceedings for such portions, leaving the status of a disputed portion open for the Government to act upon.

What did the court decide?

Request to remove garden land from Data Bank granted; First Respondent directed to make recommendations; Government left to proceed against disputed portion.

Joseph Thomas Vs Local Level Monitoring Committee — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4171 of 2016 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JOSEPH THOMAS S/O.LATE P.O.THOMAS, TC NO.32/1051, PALLIKKAL HOUSE, ST.PAULS STREET, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.) SMT.P.R.REENA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE AVINISSERY PANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, AVINISSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN - 680 313.

¶11

2. AVINISSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH AVINISSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN - 680 313. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAHUL, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.K SHERIN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 4171 of 2016 (V)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXT.P-1:	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 16.4.2014
EXT.P-2:	TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE GRANTED BY THE PALISSERY VILLAGE OFFICER, DATED 7.12.13
EXT.P-3:	TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE AND LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE PALISSERY DATED 21.11.2013
EXT.P-3(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, DATED 28.5.2013
EXT.P-4:	TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED TO THE PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.1.2014
EXT.P-5:	PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
EXT.P-5(A):	PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
EXT.P-5(B):	PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
EXT.P-6:	COPY OF GOOGLE MAP OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DATED 11.7.2002
EXT.P-6(A):	COPY OF GOOGLE MAP DATED 11.10.2006 OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES
EXT.P-6(B):	COPY OF GOOGLE MAP SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY ON 29.3.2007
EXT.P-6(C):	COPY OF GOOGLE MAP SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY WHICH HAS MATURED INTO A PUCCA GARDEN LAND ON 21.12.2010
EXT.P-6(D):	COPY OF GOOGLE MAP SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY ON DATED 8.3.2011
EXT.P-7:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.9.2014 TO THE PETITIONER
EXT.P-8:	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DATA BANK PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED 24.12.2011
EXT.P-9:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 12.9.2014
EXT.P-10:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.11.2014 OF THE CONVENER OF IST RESPONDENT CONTD..2..

¶18

..2..

¶19

WP(C).No. 4171 of 2016 (V)

¶20

EXT.P-10(A): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 11.11.2014 OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE

¶21

EXT.P-11: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19.11.2014 OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶27

===================== W.P.(C) No.4171 of 2016 - V

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner is concerned with 1.55 Acres of land comprised in Sy. No.183/16, 182/9 of Palissery Village. The petitioner contends before this Court that the entire land is reclaimed long prior to Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for brevity, Act of 2008) and the possession certificate produced as Ext.P3 also shows it as garden land. The petitioner had approached the Local Level Monitoring Committee for removing the said property from the Data Bank since the description in the Data Bank was shown as paddy land. The Local Level Monitoring Committee rejected the request of the petitioner by Ext.P11 , challenged before this Court.

¶32

¶33

W.P.(C) No.4171 of 2016 - V

¶34

The petitioner relies on the report dated

¶35

20.03.2016 of the Advocate-Commissioner, deputed from this court. A reading of the report would indicate that the entire lands are reclaimed and they cannot be now utilised as paddy land. The Government has filed an objection dated 05.04.2016 to the commission report, wherein a sketch also has been produced as Annexure A3. Even as per the affidavit of the State, the portion indicated as green in the sketch is garden land and is described as paddy land planted with arecanut trees and filled with top soil. However, with respect to 0.1598 hectares, which is shown in red, it is contended that there is an unathorised conversion of paddy land; filled with top soil and transplanted with six numbers of large coconut trees.

¶36

The petitioner as of now is not pressing the relief

¶37

as against the portion marked red, which also according to the petitioner is converted long prior to 2008. The counter affidavit

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C) No.4171 of 2016 - V

¶40

of the State specifically indicate that a stop memo was issued as early as on 12.03.2014, against the illegal reclamation of

¶41

paddy land carried out and the report of the Agricultural Officer, issued to the Revenue Divisional Officer is also produced as Annexure A2; with respect to that portion coloured in the sketch with red. Since the petitioner is not raising any contention with respect to the stop memo and the report of the Agricultural Officer, the said question will be left open.

¶42

With respect to the portion admitted by the Government to be a garden land, which is shown as green in Annexure A3 sketch, appropriate proceedings will be taken and the said extent would be removed from the Data Bank notified by the Government. The 1^st respondent shall make appropriate recommendations in accordance with the directions issued by this Court to amend the notification if

¶43

¶44

W.P.(C) No.4171 of 2016 - V

¶45

already made or correct the Draft Data Bank. With respect to the red portion, this Court has not made any observations and the Government would be entitled to take proceedings against that portion under the Act, which could be resisted by the petitioner on legally sustainable grounds. The said issue would be left open and so are the contentions of either parties.

¶46

The writ petition would stand disposed of with the

¶47

above directions. No costs.

¶48

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶49

SB/31/05/2016

¶50

// true copy //

¶51

P.A to Judge

Joseph Thomas v. Local Level Monitoring Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Thomas v. Local Level Monitoring Committee

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

Namitha Bhas Vs the M.G.University

M/S.Three Star Granites Vs the Chairman, Seiac, Kerala

P.M.Elias Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed @ Bapputty Vs the District Collector

James Vs the Local Level Monitoring Committee

Pattambi Grama Panchayath Vs State of Kerala