Allowed

Davis v.John v. the District Collector, Thrissur

Kerala HC18 Sept 2017WP(C)/29947/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking correction of land data bank entries and permission for usage of property alleged to be converted prior to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The Court directed respondents to consider pending applications based on a report from KSREC.

What did the court decide?

The fifth respondent directed to consider Ext.P3 application for data bank correction after KSREC report within three months; second respondent directed to consider Ext.P4 application after first acti

Davis v.John Vs the District Collector, Thrissur — 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

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/27TH BHADRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 29947 of 2017 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

DAVIS V. JOHN, S/O JOHN V.E., AGED 56 YEARS, VELLARACKKAL HOUSE, NALUKETTU P.O., THRISSUR- 680 308.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.N.B.ANOOP

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR- 680001.

¶11

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR- 680 001.

¶12

3. THE THAHSILDAR, CHALAKKUDY- 680 307, THRISSUR.

¶13

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KIZHAKKUM MURI VILLAGE, THRISSUR- 678 508.

¶14

5. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KORATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS CONVENER (THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KORATTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT) - 680 308.

¶15

6. THE KORATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KORATTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680 308.

¶16

WP(C).No. 29947 of 2017 (P)

¶17

7. THE SECRETARY, KORATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680 308.

¶18

8. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTER (KSRSEC), VIKAS BHAVAN, C-BLOCK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA- 695 033.

¶19

R1-R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MANURAJ R6 & R7 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, SC SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE R8 BY SRI.VISHNU S CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL,SC, KSREC

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

WP(C).No. 29947 of 2017 (P)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 16.8.2017 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 21.8.2017 EXHIBIT P3(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 21.8.2017 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.8.2017

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(C).No.29947 of 2017

¶34

--------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2017

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

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 dry/garden land several years prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that since the property is described as 'Nilam” in the revenue records as also in the data bank prepared in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act, he is unable to use the property for other purposes. According to him, since the property was converted long prior to the Act, the

¶37

W.P.(c).No.29947 of 2017 : 2 :

¶38

same should not have been shown in the data bank as 'Nilam'. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.P3 application before the fifth respondent for correction of the entry relating to that property in the data bank. He has also preferred an application before the second respondent invoking Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order, 1967 (Kerala) for permission to use the property for other purposes. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of respondents 2 and 5 in considering the applications referred to above.

¶39

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

¶40

If the property of the petitioner is one converted prior to the Act, the provisions of the 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, he is entitled to make use of the property for other purposes, after obtaining permission of

¶41

W.P.(c).No.29947 of 2017

¶42

: 3 :

¶43

the competent authority under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order, 1967 (Kerala) [See Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015(3) KLT 182)].

¶44

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the fifth respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 application preferred by the petitioner, after obtaining report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) as to the position of the property of the petitioner at the time of commencement of the Act. This shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the request made by the petitioner has been allowed, the petitioner shall produce a copy of the order passed by the fifth respondent before the second respondent and in that event, the second respondent shall pass orders on Ext.P4 application on that basis, within one month thereafter, in the light of the decision of this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph (supra), untrammelled by Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016 issued by the Government. Needless to

¶45

W.P.(c).No.29947 of 2017

¶46

: 4 :

¶47

say that if the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 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 also be considered by the said authorities, in the light of Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma (2015(2) KLT 516), within one month thereafter.

¶48

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶49

SKS

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

P.A. TO JUDGE

Davis v.John v. the District Collector, Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Davis v.John v. the District Collector, Thrissur

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

P.K.Ahammed Vs Dr. Navjotkhosa

K.R.Saleelanath Vs the District Collector

P.Kunhikoran Vs the Pilicode Grama Panchayat

Koorimannil Manappattu Sabira Vs District Collector, Malappuram

Shaji M. Vs M.Ramanunni

Muhammed Shafeeque Vs Kumarampathoor Grama Panchayat