Disposed

Aneefa v. the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O)

Kerala HC5 Jul 2018WP(C)/22381/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee to consider a petition seeking removal of property from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act within three months. Subsequently, in a contempt proceeding, the court closed the case finding that the statutory authority had complied with the earlier directions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of after directing the 3rd respondent to consider the application; the contempt case was closed due to compliance.

Aneefa Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O) — 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

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 22381 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

ANEEFA, S/O. BEERAN SAHIB, AGED 51 YEARS, CHOZHAN KULAMBIL HOUSE, THEKKEPOTTA P.O., PUTHUKODE VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.AMARNATH R LAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (R.D.O), THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 001.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 001.

¶12

3. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, PAZHAYANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 001.

¶13

4. THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE, THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER(RDO), THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 001.

¶14

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

¶15

6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKETHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANURAJ.K.J

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Msd.

¶19

07.07.2018

¶20

WP(C).No. 22381 of 2018 (W)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 04.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DRAFT DATA BANK IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29.06.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 29.06.2018 TOWARDS THE PROOF OF SERVICE OF EXHIBIT P3 APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 29.06.2018. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 29.06.2018 TOWARDS THE PROOF OF SERVICE OF EXHIBIT P5 APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 06.04.2018 IN W.P.(C)NO.12133/2018.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

07.07.2018

SHAJI P.CHALY, J.

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(C) No.22381 of 2018

¶33

======================== Dated this the 5^th day of July 2018

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Petitioner is the co-owner of property having an extent of 2.13 ares comprised in Sy.No.193/1, Block No.81 (Re.Sy.No.515/12 of Vadakkethara Village, Thalappilly Taluk, Thrissur District. It is the case of the petitioner that the property is remaining as dry land, however, in the BTR and revenue records, it is shown as 'nilam'. It is also included in the data bank constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 as 'converted land'. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 application before the 3^rd respondent seeking to remove the property from the data bank. Petitioner has also submitted Ext.P5 application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order seeking permission to utilise the land for a different purpose, other than paddy cultivation. Petitioner seeks early consideration of Exts.P3 and P5 applications.

¶36

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶37

and the learned Government Pleader, there will be a

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C)No.22381 of 2018

¶40

direction to the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P3 application, in accordance with law, and attain finality to the same, at the earliest, 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 a favourable order from the 3^rd respondent, Ext.P5 application shall be considered by the 1^st respondent in accordance with law, and attain fianality, at the earliest possible time and at any rate within three months from the date of production of order from the Local Level Monitoring Committee. Petitioner is also directed to produce a copy of this writ petition along with the appended documents before the respective statutory authorities for appropriate action.

¶41

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶42

Sd/

¶43

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶44

jm/

¶45

SHAJI P.CHALY, J.

¶46

======================== Cont.Case No.1014 of 2018

¶47

======================== Dated this the 5^th day of July 2018

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

This contempt case is filed by the petitioner complaining that the directives contained in the judgment dated 5.4.2018 is not complied with. However, I find that as per order dated 17.5.2018, directions of this Court is complied with. Learned Counsel for the petitioner tenuously submitted that even the respondents have not referred the writ petition number in the order, and therefore, it cannot be presumed that it was taking into account the directions, the order is passed now by the statutory authorities as directed in the writ petition.

¶50

However, I am of the considered opinion that when an order is passed within the time frame or within an

¶51

W.P.(C) No.22381 of 2018

¶52

¶53

extended time frame, by the statutory authority, this Court may be locked in interfering with such matters in a contempt of court proceedings. IF petitioner is of the opinion that the order passed is illegal, necessarily, petitioner will have to challene the same in appropriately constituted proceedings. I do not find any reason to entertain the contempt of court case any further, in view of the compliance of the directions by the statutory authority. Therefore, the contempt of court case is closed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to file suitable proceedings against the impugned order.

¶54

sd/ SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶55

jm/

¶56

\True copy \

¶57

PA to Judge

Aneefa v. the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneefa v. the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O)

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

P.E.Sreedevi Vs the State of Kerala

Raveendran Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Wilson Vs Pudukkad Grama Panchayath

T.K.Thambi Vs a.Ranjan I.F.S.

Fr. Joseph Samuel Karukayil Vs Rajeev Sadanandan IAS

M/S. Capital Cashew Vs M/S. Ibrahim Commodities