Disposed

Karuvely Padasekhara Samrakshana Samithy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Nov 2017WP(C)/5503/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held the writ petition infructuous as the District Collector had already passed an order under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. No further orders were required pending implementation.

What did the court decide?

None; writ closed as infructuous reserving liberty to move afresh if the Collector's order is not implemented.

Karuvely Padasekhara Samrakshana Samithy Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/23RD KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 5503 of 2014 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

KARUVELY PADASEKHARA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHY REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY JAYAPRASAD, JAYASREE MANDIRAM, THIRUMALA WARD, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.SHANES METHAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA - 686 001.

¶12

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA - 686 001.

¶13

4. THE TAHSILDAR, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA - 686 124.

¶14

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULLAKKAL VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA - 686001.

¶15

6. THE ALLEPPEY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA - 686 001.

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 5503 of 2014 (K)

¶18

7. THE SECRETARY, ALLEPPEY MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA - 686 001.

¶19

8. THE WATER WORLD TOURISM COMPANY, THIRUMALA WARD, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY,

¶20

ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MATHEW JOSEPH - 686001.

¶21

R1 TO R5 BY STATE ATTORNEY SRI.K.V.SOHAN R6 & R7 BY ADV. SRI.AZAD BABU, SC R8 BY ADVS. SMT.K.V.RESHMI SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

WP(C).No. 5503 of 2014 (K)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING MASSIVE RECLAMATION OF PADDY LAND COMMITTED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND SKETCH PREPARED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 30/10/2012.

¶29

EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/02/2013 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10/02/2014 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT

¶33

EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 13/02/2013.

¶34

EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXHIBIT-P9-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXHIBIT-P10-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶37

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶38

EXHIBIT R8(A):- A TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.8.2014.

¶39

¶40

WP(C).No. 5503 of 2014 (K)

¶41

EXHIBIT R8(B):- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER FROM MLA,ALONG WITH THE CONSOLIDATED DOCUMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF SANCTION OF FUNDS BY THE M.P'S AND THE HARBOUR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT.

¶42

EXHIBIT R8(C):- A TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.11.2014.

¶43

EXHIBIT R8(D):- A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.10.2014.

¶44

EXHIBIT R8(E):- A TRUE COPY OF THE ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE SUPTD.ENGINEER, KUTTANAD DEVELOPMENT CIRCLE DATED 26.9.2013.

¶45

EXHIBIT R8(F):- A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING PAYMENT OF SUPERVISION CHARGES OF HE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT AT THE RATE OF 1.25 % BEARING NO.228856.

¶46

EXHIBIT R8(G):- PUBLIC UTILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT DATED NIL.

¶47

EXHIBIT R8(H):- A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT SHOWING THE SKETCH PREPARATION ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT 28.3.2014.

¶48

EXHIBIT R8(I):- A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶49

EXHIBIT R8(J):- A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER/8TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.9.2017 WITHOUT ENCLOSURES.

¶50

EXHIBIT R8(K):- A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT DATED 22.9.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH TYPED COPY.

¶51

EXHIBIT R8(L):- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23.8.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE THAHSILDAR.

¶52

EXHIBIT R8(M):- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE COUNSEL.

¶53

¶54

WP(C).No. 5503 of 2014 (K)

¶55

EXHIBIT R8(N):- A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.9.2017.

¶56

EXHIBIT R8(O):- A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED STATEMENT DATED 04.10.2017 WITHOUT EXHIBITS.

¶57

EXHIBIT R8(P):- A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 2(C) OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971,DATED 04.10.2017.

¶58

EXHIBIT R8(Q):- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT SEEKING A COPY OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR'S REPORT FILED DATED 23.10.2017.

¶59

EXHIBIT R8(R) :-A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOR REVENUE DATED 23.10.2017.

¶60

EXHIBIT R9(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.2.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.

¶61

EXHIBIT R9(B):- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.2.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE 2D PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S TO JUDGE

P.N.RAVINDRAN &

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ.

¶67

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

¶68

W.P.(C).No.5503 of 2014

¶69

============================ Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2017

¶70

JUDGMENT

¶71

P.N.Ravindran, J.

¶72

The petitioner Samithy, an association of farmers engaged in paddy cultivation at Karuvely Padasekharam in Alappuzha District has through its Secretary filed this writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take urgent and necessary action to restore the original position of the paddy lands covered by Exts.P2 and P3 which are reports submitted by the Village Officer, Mullackal Village to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Alappuzha. Ext.P2 is the reply furnished to the Secretary of the petitioner Samithy under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Ext.P3 is the report submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Alappuzha by the Village Officer, Mullackal Village. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents 2 to 5 to take necessary steps to prevent further reclamation of paddy land covered by Exts.P2 and P3.

¶73

When the writ petition came up for consideration today, Sri.Shanes Methar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶74

W.P.(C).No.5503 of 2014

¶75

¶76

submitted that in view of Ext.R8(C) order dated 12.11.2014 issued by the District Collector, Alappuzha under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, the grievance voiced by the petitioner Samithi stands redressed.

¶77

As far as the second prayer is concerned, it is evident from the subsequent proceedings initiated by the District Collector, Alappuzha that even in respect of encroachments and reclamations that have taken place after Ext.R8(C) order was passed, the District Collector has initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the Act. Therefore, no further orders are called for regarding that aspect of the matter as well.

¶78

In the light of the aforesaid submissions, this writ petition is closed as infructuous reserving liberty with the petitioner Samithi to move this court afresh if Ext.R8(C) order dated 12.11.2014 is not implemented within the time limit stipulated therein.

¶79

Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE

¶80

stu

¶81

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Karuvely Padasekhara Samrakshana Samithy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuvely Padasekhara Samrakshana Samithy v. State of Kerala

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

Gracy Vs Jijo Joseph

Thiruvalla East Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Kerala Co-Operative Employees Union

The Cochin Port Trust Vs a.P.Geetha

Thomas Chandy Vs the State of Kerala

Sharlej Vs Geetha Krishnan

The Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Vs N.Vijayan