Remanded

Martin Varghese v. District Collector

Kerala HC7 Nov 2017WP(C)/35500/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a writ petition challenging an application to initiate action for reclaimed land, the High Court of Kerala directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee to decide on the petitioners' correction application within three months and deferred pending proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee to take a decision on the application for correction of Data Bank entry within three months; deferred further proceedings under the Act.

Martin Varghese Vs District Collector — Kerala HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/16TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 35500 of 2017 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. MARTIN VARGHESE, S/O.M.T.VARGHESE, MELETH HOUSE, FLAT NO.703, SEIKEN EAST END, PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR P.O., KOCHI-682 017.

¶8

2. RISMA THOMAS, W/O.MARTIN VARGHESE, MELETH HOUSE, FLAT NO.703, SEIKEN EAST END, PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR P.O., KOCHI-682 017.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.SOYUZ SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM,PIN:682 030.

¶12

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR, RDO OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN:682 001.

¶13

3. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, CHERANLLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, CHERANALOOR, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., KOCHI-682 027.

¶14

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERANALOOR VILLAGE, KANYANOOR TALUK, CHITTOOR SOUTH P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN:682 027.

¶15

5. CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN:682 027.

¶16

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

WP(C).No. 35500 of 2017 (J)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 30.11.15. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.8.2017. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM DATED 24.8.17. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24.8.17. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(ORDINARY) NO.4592/17 DATED 31.10.2017 EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.K2 9818/15/K.DIS DATED 11/03/16 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(C).No.35500 of 2017-J.

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2017

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The petitioners own an item of property. Ext.P7 is the recommendation made by the second respondent to the first respondent to initiate action against the petitioners in respect of the said property as provided for under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). Ext.P7 proceeds as if the property is a 'paddy land' and the petitioners have reclaimed the same. The specific case of the petitioners is that the property referred to in Ext.P7 is a property reclaimed long prior to the coming into force of the Act and as such, action cannot be initiated against the petitioners in respect of the said property under the Act. Of course, it is conceded by the petitioners that the property of the petitioners referred to above is one shown in the Data Bank prepared under the Act as 'paddy land'.

¶35

WP.(C).No.35500/2017-J.

¶36

¶37

According to the petitioners, they have already preferred an application in the prescribed form for correction of the entry in the Data Bank as regards the said property. Ext.P4 is the application preferred by the petitioners for the said purpose. Petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions in this regard in this writ petition.

¶38

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

¶39

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the Local Level Monitoring Committee concerned viz, the third respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4 application preferred by the petitioners in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and the Rules, as also orders issued by the Government in this regard. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that until a decision is taken on Ext.P4 application as

¶40

WP.(C).No.35500/2017-J.

¶41

¶42

directed above, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 shall be deferred. Petitioners shall not, however, alter the nature of the property.

¶43

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

¶44

Kvs/-

¶45

// true copy //

Martin Varghese v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Martin Varghese v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.a.Sebastian Vs the District Collector

Soman Karunakaran Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Pramod Das Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

A.Ziyad Vs the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

George Philip Vs State of Kerala

Sajeevkumar T.V. Vs the District Collector, Malappuram