Allowed

Suresh.K.R v. the District Collector, Wayanad

Kerala HC13 Nov 2017WP(C)/36242/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition challenged the inaction of the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding an application by the petitioner to utilize his property, described as Nilam, for other purposes. The court held the petitioner is exempt from the Act as conversion predates it and directed the respondent to process the application per earlier precedents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition allowed; second respondent directed to pass orders on the petitioner's application within one month, untrammelled by Circular No. 46848/P1/2016.

Suresh.K.R Vs the District Collector, Wayanad — 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 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/22ND KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 36242 of 2017 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SURESH.K.R., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, KAIPULLY HOUSE, KUPPADI P.O., PIN-673592, WAYANAD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.N.B.ANOOP

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD-673592.

¶11

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY-670645.

¶12

3. THE TAHSILDAR, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673592.

¶13

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NENMANI VILLAGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673592.

¶14

5. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, NENMANI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS CONVENER, (THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, NENMANI, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673592).

¶15

6. NENMANI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NENMANI, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673592.

¶16

R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

mbr/

¶19

WP(C).No. 36242 of 2017 (E)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25.10.2016. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.10.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(C).No.36242 of 2017-E.

¶29

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

¶30

Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2017

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

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 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, in the light of the provisions contained in the Act, he is unable to use the property for other purposes. It is alleged by the petitioner that in the Data Bank prepared in terms of the Act, it is clearly mentioned that the property is one converted prior to

¶33

the commencement of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.2 application invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 before the second respondent,

¶34

seeking permission to use the land for other purposes. The

¶35

WP.(C).No.36242/2017-E.

¶36

¶37

grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the second respondent in granting the request made by the petitioner in the said application.

¶38

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

¶39

3. 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 would not apply to the property of the petitioner, he is entitled to make use of the property for other purposes, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 [See Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015(3) KLT 182)].

¶40

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to pass orders on Ext.P2 application, in the light of the decision of this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph (supra) , within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the

¶41

WP.(C).No.36242/2017-E.

¶42

¶43

petitioner, after satisfying, by calling for a report from the fifth respondent that the property involved is not one which is liable to be included in the Data Bank prepared under the Act. In the light of the decision of this Court in Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2017(3) KLT 822), the direction aforesaid shall be complied with, untrammelled by the directions contained in Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016. Needless to say that if the request of the petitioner under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order 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), within one month thereafter.

¶44

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

¶45

Kvs/-

¶46

// true copy //

Suresh.K.R v. the District Collector, Wayanad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh.K.R v. the District Collector, Wayanad

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

Prasad M.M Vs Dr.a.Kowsigan

M.I.Luvis Vs M.K.Kabeer

Rabiya K.M Vs State of Kerala

Magic Screenz Entertainment Private Limited Vs the Geologist

D.Kusumakumari Vs J.Arun Babu

Sasikumaran.D Vs the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram