Allowed

Cicy Joseph v. District Collector

Kerala HC19 Sept 2017WP(C)/2358/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an order directing restoration of land originally a rubber plantation to paddy cultivation. The court held the order violated the 1967 Order as it lacked power to mandate restoration, and the 1998 Act did not apply to pre-conversion land.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order directing restoration of land. Directed the first respondent to pass orders on the pending application for land use permission within one month.

Cicy Joseph Vs District Collector — 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

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/28TH BHADRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 2358 of 2017 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

CICY JOSEPH, AGED 48, W/O M.P.SOJAN, MALEKUDY HOUSE, NEELEESWARAM P.O., KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.SOYUZ

¶9

SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶12

2. REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI-682001.

¶13

3. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, MALAYATTOOR NEELESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MALAYATTOR, NEELESWARAM, NEELESWARAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683574.

¶14

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683574.

¶15

WP(C).No. 2358 of 2017 (T)

¶16

5. MALAYATTOOR NEELESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEELESWARAM P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683574.

¶17

R1-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL R5 BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP(C).No. 2358 of 2017 (T)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 11.4.2016 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 11.4.2016 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 2.6.2016 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER DATED 14.7.2016 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.9.2016 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.12.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.46848/P1/2016/ REVENUE DATED 22.12.2016 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(C).No.2358 of 2017-T.

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2017.

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The petitioner owns an item of property. It is stated that the said property was originally a paddy land and the same was converted as a rubber plantation about 30 years ago. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns Ext.P6 order, by which the second respondent has directed the petitioner to restore the property as a paddy land. It is stated that Ext.P6 order is one issued by the second respondent under the Land Utilization Order, 1967 (Kerala). According to the petitioner, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P6. It is stated by the petitioner that since the property has been converted long prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 1998 (the Act), the petitioner is entitled to legitimise the use of the property after obtaining permission under Clause 6 of the Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (Kerala). Ext.P7 is the application preferred by the

¶35

¶36

WP.(C).No.2358/2017-T.

¶37

petitioner seeking permission of the first respondent to use the property for other purposes. The inaction on the part of the first respondent in taking a decision on Ext.P7 application is another grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition.

¶38

It is seen that in response to the interim order passed by this Court on 24.01.2017, a report has been filed by the third respondent, the Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under the Act to the effect that the land of the petitioner was found to be covered by thick vegetation since 2005, confirming the stand taken by the petitioner that the property has been converted long prior to the introduction of the Act.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶40

In Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015 (3) KLT 182), it was held by this Court that the Land Utilisation Order 1967 (Kerala) confers power on the competent authority only to direct cultivation in a land with a particular crop and it does not confer power on the authority concerned to resume the land to its original state. In the light of the said judgment, Ext.P6 order is liable to be set aside. Further, if the property of the petitioner is one converted prior to the Act, the provisions of the

¶41

WP.(C).No.2358/2017-T.

¶42

¶43

Act would not apply to the same, as held by the Apex Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep (2015(1) KLT 984). If the provisions of the Act do not apply to the property of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to make use of the property for other purposes, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order, 1967 (Kerala) as clarified by this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph ( supra ).

¶44

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P6 order is quashed and the first respondent is directed to pass orders on Ext.P7 application, in the light of the decision of this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph (supra) , having regard to the fact that the land in question is one converted prior to the Act. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since the restrictions imposed by the Government in terms of Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016 for exercise of power under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order, 1967 (Kerala), have been interfered with by this Court in Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2017(3) KLT 822), the direction aforesaid shall be complied with, untrammelled by the directions in the Circular referred to above.

¶45

¶46

WP.(C).No.2358/2017-T.

¶47

Needless to say that if the request of the petitioner has been granted, she will be entitled to obtain building permit from the local authority concerned. Likewise, if the request aforesaid is granted, the petitioner will be entitled to move the authorities under the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of the land as garden land and if such a request is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the said authorities, in the light of Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma (2015(2) KLT 516).

¶48

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶49

Kvs/-

¶50

// true copy //

Cicy Joseph v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cicy Joseph v. District Collector

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

Shaji M. Vs M.Ramanunni

Muhammed Shafeeque Vs Kumarampathoor Grama Panchayat

Abu.K.M Vs State of Kerala

Hamid Yaffi Vs Sindhu N.B

The Special Tahsildar (La) Vs Radhakrishnan

Sabitha Khureishi Vs Punalur Municipality