Allowed

Joby v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jun 2018Crl.MC/1468/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed criminal proceedings instituted under Section 23 of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act. The Court held that the District Collector's report confirmed the land was incorrectly included in the data bank, meaning the facts did not attract the Act.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in ST No. 268 of 2017 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad are quashed.

Joby Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1468 of 2018

¶6

ST 268/2017 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT

¶7

PALAKKAD

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶9

1 JOBY AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. DEVASSYKUTTY, PALIYEKKARA, PULAKKATTUKARA,

¶10

MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DIST.

¶11

2 JOLY W/O. JOY, PALIYEKKARA, PULAKKATTUKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM,

¶12

THRISSUR DIST.

¶13

BY ADV.SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 031.

¶16

2. VILLAGE OFFICER

¶17

KOLLENGODE - 2, PALAKKAD DIST.

¶18

PIN - 678 506.

¶19

BY SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S. HRITHWIK

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

sdr/2.6.18

¶22

Crl.MC.No. 1468 of 2018 ()

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)'ANNEXURES

¶25

ANNEXURE I	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLENGODE DATED 04.8.2017 CERTIFYING THAT THE PETITIONER'S LAND IS CEASED TO BE PADDY LAND.
ANNEXURE I(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLENGODE DATED 31.10.2017 CERTIFYING THAT THE PETITIONER'S LAND IS CEASED TO BE PADDY LAND.
ANNEXURE II	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE KOLLENGODE GRAMAPANCHAYATH FOR THE YEAR 2014-15.
ANNEXURE III	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE KOLLENGODE GRAMAPANCHAYATH FOR THE YEAR 2015-16.
ANNEXURE IV	TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 10.06.2016.
ANNEXURE V	THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, ST. NO.268/2017 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT.
ANNEXURE VI	TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT DATED 20.06.2017.
ANNEXURE VII	THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GEOLOGIST PALAKKAD DATED 20.06.2017.
ANNEXURE VIII	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PALAKKAD DATED 04.07.2017.
ANNEXURE IX	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 10744/2017 DATED 12.04.2017
ANNEXURE X	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENER OF LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KOLLENGODE DATED 13.03.2018

¶26

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES NIL

¶27

/TRUE COPY/

¶28

PA TO JUDGE sdr/2.6.18

¶29

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶30

-------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 1468 of 2018

¶31

Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2018

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶34

The petitioners are the accused in ST No. 268 of 2017 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad. The allegation is that they committed the offence under Section 23 of the Conservation of (Kerala) Paddy Land and Wetland Act (for short, “the Act”). The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that the facts do attract the offence.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶36

The complaint was filed on the basis that the property involved in the case was included in the data bank. Now, the District Collector has reported that it is a mistake. It follows that the facts of the case do not attract the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that the petitioners have already remitted the amount

¶37

Crl.M.C. No. 1468 of 2018

¶38

..2..

¶39

demanded from him under the MMDR Act.

¶40

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The proceedings in ST No. 268 of 2017 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad are quashed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶43

bka/01.06.2018

Joby v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joby 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

Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

Lovin George Vs State of Kerla

Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

Yakoob Vs State of Kerala

Nikhil Antony Vs State of Kerala

Babu.v Vs State of Kerala