Dismissed

Mariamma Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Dec 2017WA/2531/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge in W.P(C) No.36821/2017 declined to decide the writ petition on merits, directing the appellant to approach the Land Revenue Commissioner under Clause 11 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The High Court of Kerala held that an order under Clause 6 is appealable under Clause 11 and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed. The appellant is directed to file an appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner within two weeks.

Mariamma Jose Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1939 WA.No. 2531 of 2017 () IN WP(C).36821/2017 --------------------------------------------

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)36821/2017 DATED 16.11.2017

¶6

APPELLANT(S):

¶7

MARIAMMA JOSE, W/o Jose John, Keelath house, ramapuram bazar p.o., kottayam - 686 576.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ROY CHACKO SRI.K.C.VINCENT

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶12

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶13

4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶14

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVARPU, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶15

6. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICERM, KRISHI BHAVAN, THIRUVARPU - 686 001.

¶16

R BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. TEKCHAND

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sou.

¶19

Antony Dominic, Ag.CJ &

¶20

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J

¶21

W.A. No. 2531 of 2017

¶22

Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2017

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Antony Dominic, Ag.CJ

¶25

Appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P(C). No.36821 of 2017. In the writ petition, she challenged Ext.P10 order passed by the District Collector in exercise of his powers under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order ('the KLU Order' for short).

¶26

By the judgment under appeal, declining to consider the writ petition on merits, the learned Single Judge held that the remedy of the appellant lies under Clause 11 of the KLU Order itself, which provides for an appellate remedy before the Land Revenue Commissioner. It is this judgment, which is challenged before us.

¶27

We heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶28

The short question that arises for consideration is whether the finding of the learned Single Judge that the remedy

¶29

W.A.2531/17

¶30

¶31

of the appellant lies before the appellate forum is legal or not. Admittedly, the application filed by the appellant was under Clause 6 of the KLU Order. Therefore, the order passed by the District Collector was in exercise of the powers under Clause 6. Such an order is appealable under Clause 11 of the Order itself. It is therefore that the learned Single Judge hasdirected that the remedy of the appellant lies before the Appellate Authority.

¶32

True, the learned counsel for the appellant referred us to the observations made by the District Collector in the impugned order to the effect that the land in question is wet land and is covered by the provisions contained in Act 28 of 2008. According to him, since there is such a finding, appeal under Clause 11 is not maintainable.

¶33

We are unable to agree with this contention. As we have already stated, the power exercised by the District Collector is under Clause 6 of the KLU Order and irrespective of the observations made in the impugned order, an order passed under Clause 6 is appealable under Clause 11 of the Order. Therefore, this contention merits only to be rejected and we do so. We are not satisfied that the learned Single Judge has committed any illegality. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

¶34

W.A.2531/17

¶35

¶36

Despite the dismissal of the writ petition, having regard to the pendency of the appeal, it is ordered that if the appellant files appeal against the impugned order, within two weeks from today, ignoring the delay that was caused in the meanwhile, the appeal will be entertained by the Land Revenue

¶37

Commissioner and decided on merits.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Antony Dominic, Acting Chief Justice

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶42

sou.12/12. // True copy //

Mariamma Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariamma Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.K.Nityanandan Vs S. Ratnakumaran, Managing Director, Kerala State Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Federation Ltd.

Gail (India) Ltd. Vs Komalavally

P. Gangadhara Alva Vs Icar - Central Plantation Crops Research Institute

O.P.Jisha Vs Sri.Balachandran Madathil

P.C.Thomas Ex. Mp Vs the State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Sheeba Kuries Limited