Quashed

Dyne I.U. v. the Principal Secretary to Government (Revenue)

Kerala HC20 Sept 2017WP(C)/23497/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing the order rejecting the petitioners' land utilization application which relied on a Government circular set aside in a previous judgment, the High Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass fresh orders untrammelled by the impugned circular.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 order is quashed; fourth respondent directed to pass fresh orders on Ext.P4 application untrammelled by Ext.P7 circular within one month.

Dyne I.U. Vs the Principal Secretary to Government (Revenue) — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/29TH BHADRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 23497 of 2017 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. DYNE I.U.,

¶8

AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. UDAYAN ILLIKAT HOUSE,

¶9

V.P.MARKAKKAR ROAD, TOLL JUNCTION,

¶10

EDAPALLY PO., COCHIN-682 024

¶11

2. LYDA.,

¶12

D/O. UDAYAN AGED 49 YEARS,

¶13

ATTYIL HOUSE, UDAYA BEACH ROAD,

¶14

PATHIRAPALLI PO., PATHIRAPILLY, ALLAPUZHA

¶15

3. VIDYA.,

¶16

D/O. UDAYAN, AGED 44 YEARS,

¶17

CHEEROOTH HOUSE, CHEEROOTH TEMPLE ROAD,

¶18

MULLASSERY, THRISSUR

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE

¶20

RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (REVENUE) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶22

2. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (REVENUE) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001

¶23

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030

¶24

4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FOR KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682001

¶25

5. THE CONVENER LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, VYTTILA, VYPARABHAVAN, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682019

¶26

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.J. MANURAJ

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

sdr/-

¶29

WP(C).No. 23497 of 2017 (J)

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶32

EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY ISSUED BY EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE DATED 26.9.2015

¶33

EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE DATA BANK REGISTER

¶34

EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 13.7.2016
EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI DATED 13/7/2016
EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP C NO.25492/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 31.8.2016
EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, FORT KOCHI DATED 13.1.2017
EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.46848/P1/2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 22.12.2016

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

sdr/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶41

-------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.23497 of 2017

¶42

---------------------------------------------------------------

¶43

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2017

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

Ext.P4 application preferred by the petitioners invoking Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order, 1967 (Kerala) has been rejected by the fourth respondent as per Ext.P6 order. It is stated that Ext.P6 order has been passed on the strength of Ext.P7 circular issued by the Government. The case of the petitioners is that Ext.P7 circular has been set aside by this Court in Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2017 (3) KLT 822] and therefore, the fourth respondent has to consider the application of the petitioner afresh untrammelled by Ext.P7 circular.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶47

W.P.(c).No.23497 of 2017

¶48

: 2 :

¶49

petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶50

As rightly contended by the petitioners, in

¶51

Shivadasan (supra), the directions issued by the Government in terms of Ext.P7 circular has been interfered by this Court.

¶52

In the circumstances, Ext.P6 order is quashed and the fourth respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioners untrammelled by Ext.P7 circular. This shall be done within

¶53

one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶54

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶55

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶56

rsr

¶57

W.P.(c).No.23497 of 2017 : 3 :

Dyne I.U. v. the Principal Secretary to Government (Revenue)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dyne I.U. v. the Principal Secretary to Government (Revenue)

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

Hamid Yaffi Vs Sindhu N.B

The Special Tahsildar (La) Vs Radhakrishnan

Cicy Joseph Vs District Collector

P.Mohanan Vs Hydru E.K

Dr.N.Veeramanikandan Vs Jyothikumar

V.E.Kabeer Vs the Deputy Director of Panchayats