The Court quashed a prohibitory order regarding land retained as paddy or wetland under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Relying on a report by the Local Level Monitoring Committee, the Court found the land was dry land recorded as 'Purayidam', not wetland.
Ext.P8 order quashed; writ petition allowed.
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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 13076 of 2017 (H)
PETITIONER(S):
1. JERRY PERERA, SON OF LAZER FERERA, THOPPIL ST. ANTONY'S BUNGALOW, VARAPUZHA LANDING P.O., PIN-683 517, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE.
2. HARRISON PERARA,
BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.SAJAN SRI.M.MOHAMED NAVAZ
RESPONDENT(S):
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, O/O THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 020.
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, O/O THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682 001.
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, O/O THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, CHERANELLOR P.O., PIN -682 034.
4. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, O/O THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, CHERANELLOR P.O., PIN-682 034.
R1 TO R4 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.V.ANANDAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 13076 of 2017 (H)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 2217/2016 OF ERNAKULAM SUB REGISTRY. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC LAND TAX REGISTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 15.7.15 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY EXTRACT TO THANDAPPER ACCOUNT NO.779 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER CHERANALLOOR. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | COPY OF BASIC LAND TAX REGISTER SHOWING THE NATURE OF LAND IN OLD SURVEY NUMBER 130/2 OF CHERANELLOR VILLAGE. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 20.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE REF H2-4920/16 DATED 20.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
W.P.(C). No. 13076 of 2017(H) ===================================================== Dated this the 18th day of December, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, who are stated to be in ownership and possession of an extent of 13.65 Ares of property in Re Survey Nos.139/8, 139/10 and 139.23 and 9.91 Ares in Re Survey No. 139/23 in Block No.4 of Cheranellor Village, are aggrieved by Ext.P8 prohibitory order issued by the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that the land belonging to them is not paddy land or wetland for the purposes of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act ('2008 Act' for short) and hence, Ext.P8 order is vitiated by a jurisdictional error. When the matter came up for admission, this Court had called for a report of the the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) with regard to the nature and lie of the land. From the report dated 30.11.2017, that has since been filed by the LLMC, it is seen that the land belonging to the petitioners is dry land and is not included in the land data bank prepared for the region. It is also evident from the report that, even in the revenue records, the land belonging to the petitioners is recorded as 'Purayidam'. Taking note of the said report of the LLMC, I find that the land belonging to the petitioners, as referred
-2-
W.P.(C). No. 13076 of 2017(H)
above, cannot be seen as paddy land or wetland for the purposes of '2008 Act' and further it is also described in the revenue records as 'Purayidam'. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P8 order cannot be legally sustained. I therefore, quash Ext.P8 order, and allow the writ petition with consequential reliefs to the petitioners.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
das/ 18.12.2017
The Resurvey No. 139/12(Survey No.130/2) is incorporated in the first sentence of the judgment dated 18/12/2017 in W.P.(C) No. 13076/2017 as per order dated 15/03/2018 in I.A No. 3205/2018 in W.P.(C) No.13076/2017.
Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a prohibitory order cannot be legally sustained if the land in question is dry land and not paddy or wet land under the 2008 Act.
Whether the order is vitiated by jurisdictional error due to the land being recorded as 'Purayidam' rather than wetland.
Jerry Perera
Harrison Perara
District Collector
Revenue Divisional Officer
Village Officer
Agricultural Officer
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
