Disposed

Sherly v. District Level Authorized Committee

Kerala HC2 Jul 2018WP(C)/14582/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner, who owns land shown as Nilam in revenue records despite being dry land, sought direction for early consideration of applications to rectify classification and change land use. The High Court of Kerala directed the second respondent to consider the rectification application within three months and the fourth respondent to consider the utilisation application with

What did the court decide?

Directed second respondent to consider application within three months; fourth respondent to consider subsequent application within three months of obtaining enabling order.

Sherly Vs District Level Authorized Committee — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2018 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 14582 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

SHERLY, W/O. V.T. LUKOSE, VALLIKADUKUZHIYIL, CHITTADI, VANDAZHI, PALAKKAD DIST.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE, PALAKKAD (DISTRICT LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND

¶11

WET LAND ACT), PALAKKAD BY ITS CHAIRMAN- REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶12

2. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,

¶13

(UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF

¶14

PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT), REP. BY ITS CONVENER - AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL FILED OFFICER, VANDAZHI KRISHI BHAVAN,

¶15

PALAKKAD DIST - 678 706.

¶16

3. VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶17

VANDAZHI - II, ALATHUR TALUK,

¶18

PALAKKAD DISTRICT -678 541.

¶19

4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD DIST - 678 001.

¶20

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No. 14582 of 2018 (W)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID LAND WITH THE VILLAGE OFFICE AT VANDAZHI II. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VANDAZHI II. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE RECTIFICATION. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT.28/3/2018. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO. 42162/2017 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ENAKULAM.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)'EXHIBITS - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

TS 02.07.2018

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 14582 of 2018

¶34

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

¶35

Dated this 2^nd day of July, 2018

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Petitioner is the owner of an extent of 0.4310 Ares of property situate in Re-Survey No. 242 of Vandazhi Village,

¶38

Alathur Taluk, Palakkad district. According to the petitioner, the land was remaining as dry land, however, in the Basic Tax Register as well as in the revenue records, the property is still shown as Nilam . Thereupon, the petitioner has submitted Ext. P4 application before the second respondent, which is pending consideration. So also, in order to utilize

¶39

the property for a different purpose, petitioner has submitted Ext. P5 application under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order before the fourth respondent. Petitioner seeks direction for early consideration of the aforesaid application.

¶40

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 14582 of 2018 2

¶42

learned Senior Government Pleader, there will be a direction

¶43

to the second respondent to consider Ext. P4 application at

¶44

the earliest possible time, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner is able to secure an enabling order from the second respondent, Ext. P5 application shall be considered by the fourth respondent in accordance with law and attain finality at the earliest possible time, and at any rate, within three months from the date of production of the order from the second respondent. Petitioner is also directed to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the appended documents before the respective statutory authorities.

¶45

Sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

02/07/2018

P.A. TO JUDGE

Sherly v. District Level Authorized Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sherly v. District Level Authorized Committee

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.Abraham Vs a.Shynamol

Santhosh S Vs Kamalavardhana Rao

Knm Arts & Science College Vs P.K.Radhakrishnan

Sasikumar Vs the Senior Manager

Smitha Liju Vs State of Kerala

Bappu Vadakkayil Vs the Tanoor Municipality