Allowed

James v. the Local Level Monitoring Committee

Kerala HC30 May 2016WP(C)/4180/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition directing the Local Level Monitoring Committee to expeditiously survey the petitioner's waterlogged land to update the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, based on an Advocate-Commissioner's report.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to carry out the survey of the petitioner's land as expeditiously as possible and make necessary changes in the notified Data Bank.

James Vs the Local Level Monitoring Committee — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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. 4180 of 2016 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JAMES

¶8

S/O.LONAPPAN, PAZHAYIDATH HOUSE, KARUVANNUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,M.C VELAYUDHAN, S/O. KUNJANDI, MARIYATHODI HOUSE, PARITHIPRA, SHORNUR P.O, PALAKKAD PIN 679 121

¶9

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

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,KRISHI BHAVAN, PORATHISSERY, P.O KARUVANNUR, THRISSUR PIN 680 711

¶12

R. 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. 4180 of 2016 (V)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHBIIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES THRISSUR DATD 28-012014

¶18

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROJECT REPORT DATED 16-09-2013 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES THRISSUR

¶19

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF SATELLITE IMAGERY OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, PORATHISSERY DATED 23-04-2015

¶20

EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, PORATHISSERY DATED 23-4-2015

¶21

EXHIBIT P4(B)TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, PORATHISSERY DATED 28-04-2015

¶22

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF DRAFT DATA BANK OF PORATHISSERY VILLAGE EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 25-07-2015

¶23

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8-12-2015 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER ALONG WITH THE REPORT OF INSPECTOR DATED 08-12-2015

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

ANNEXURE-1 THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE PARTIES

¶26

ANNEXURE-2 ROUGH SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P4 SERIES.

¶27

ANNEXURE-3 COPY OF SURVEY SKETCH MAINTAINED IN THE VILLAGE OFFICE, PORATHISSERY.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(C) No.4180 of 2016-V

¶34

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

¶35

Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2016

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The petitioner is concerned with 14 Acres of land, wherein there was earlier in existence paddy lands, as is the description in the revenue records, even now. There was a tile factory in existence in the property the operation of which, involved large scale mining of earth; which resulted in the land being rendered un-cultivable for reason of it being converted into a water logged area, is the contention. This is also said to be long prior to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for brevity, Act of 2008).

¶38

As of now, the petitioner contends that almost

¶39

11.9734 Acres of land is lying waterlogged and about 1.7534 Acres has been reclaimed prior to 2008. The petitioner also

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C) No.4180 of 2016-V

¶42

had taken out an Advocate-Commission, who has filed report dated 14.04.2016, producing the sketch and photographs as also showing the reclaimed property as well as the waterlogged areas. The petitioner's contentions are substantially found to be correct as per the Commission Report.

¶43

The official respondents have filed an objection to the Commission Report, which points out certain clarifications as available in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, which are extracted hereunder:-

¶44

It is submitted that petitioner is the owner in possession of 13.72 Acres of land comprised in Sy.Nos. 66, 68,93,94,96,101,102,111,112,113 and 82,82/1,83, 84 and 85 of Parathissery village, Thrissur District. All the Survey numbers mentioned above, except Sy.No.80, are included in the draft data bank prepared as per Act 28 of 2008. The Advocate Commissioner has produced photographs of the property and coloured sketch along with the commission report as Annexure-2. It is submitted that a portion of the land marked with pink colour in annexure-2 sketch is a reclamation land before commencing Act 28 of 2008. The Village officer informed that a small area in the above said land is a puramboke land as per revenue records. A portion of the land which is marked with orange colour is also a reclaimed land before to the commencement

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C) No.4180 of 2016-V

¶47

of Act 28 of 2008. A portion of land which is marked with green colour is a paddy land suitable for paddy cultivation. A portion of land which is marked as blue colour is a water logged area with pits and which is a 'wet land' as defined in Act 28 of 2008.

¶48

A portion of land which is marked with brown colour is also a 'marshy land' and it is suitable for paddy cultivation which is a paddy land as defined in Act 28 of 2008. A Canal is also passing through the boundary of the above said property and there is continuous supply of water through the said canal.

¶49

The Village Officer who is also a member of the Local Level Monitoring Committee has already sent a request to Ttahsildar for measuring and demarcating the puramboke land which included in the portion of land which is marked with pink colour.

¶50

The learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner does not intend to fill up the area nor is the petitioner attempting reclamation. The waterlogged areas have to remain as such and the conversion of the same to a paddy land is down right impossible and is not a feasible exercise, is the petitioner's contention.

¶51

As has been stated in the objection, of the official respondents, it has to be treated as a wet land as

¶52

¶53

W.P.(C) No.4180 of 2016-V

¶54

contemplated in the Act of 2008. The petitioner contends that the petitioner would only undertake fish farming in the said area in accordance with Ext.P2 report. If the same is permissible, necessarily, the petitioner could do that, but this Court would not make any observations on that. Suffice it to say that going by the objection to the Commission report filed on behalf of the official respondents, the relevant portions of which have been extracted above, the Local Level Monitoring Committee, the Secretary of which is the Agricultural Officer, on being intimated about the measurement and demarcation; which is to be conducted by the Tahsildar, would make necessary changes in the Data Bank as has been noted in the objections itself.

¶55

In such circumstance, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to carry out the survey as expeditiously as possible and the petitioner shall provide necessary assistance for the same especially since the

¶56

¶57

W.P.(C) No.4180 of 2016-V

¶58

Commissioner has reported that waterlogged area has depth of almost 7-8 feet in certain places. The respondent shall carry out the changes in the notified Data Bank in accordance with what has been stated in the objections filed by the official respondents and extracted herein above, as expeditiously as possible after the survey is completed. The copy of the rough sketch, prepared by the Advocate-Commissioner shall form part of the judgment, since the same is referred to in the objections as extracted herein. The question with respect to puramboke land as raised by the Government would be left upon and the contentions of either parties could be taken at the appropriate time, if the Government proposes to take any proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957.

¶59

The writ petition would stand allowed. No costs.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶62

// true copy //

¶63

SB/30/05/2016

¶64

P.A to Judge.

James v. the Local Level Monitoring Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James v. the 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

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

Joseph Thomas Vs Local Level Monitoring Committee

Pattambi Grama Panchayath Vs State of Kerala