Dismissed

Jose John v. the District Collector

Kerala HC13 Dec 2019WP(C)/10576/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged illegal reclamation of paddy land by respondents 7 and 8. The court observed that such allegations require investigation by the District Collector under Section 13 of the Paddy Land Act, not the RDO.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Liberty granted to petitioners to move an application under Section 13 of the Paddy Land Act before the District Collector within one month.

Jose John Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.10576 OF 2018(V)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 JOSE JOHN, MEMANA HOUSE, KUNINJI P.O., VAZHITHALA VAZHI, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685583.

¶8

2 STANLY ANTONY, KEETHAPPILLY HOUSE, KUNINJI P.O., VAZHITHALA VAZHI,IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685583.

¶9

3 NIJO THOMAS, ARAYATHUMKARA HOUSE, METHIRI P.O.,RAMAPURAM VIA, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686576.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.P.R.RAJESH SRI.JOHN T.PAUL

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686001.

¶14

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALA REVENUE DIVISION, CIVIL STATION, PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA-686575.

¶15

3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER RAMAPURAM KRISHI BHAVAN RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA-686576.

¶16

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER RAMAPURAM VILLAGE RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA-686576.

¶17

5 THE SECRETARY RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA-686576.

¶18

6 THE PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF LLMC RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA-686576.

¶19

WPC 10576/18

¶20

¶21

7 ANTONY JOSE, AERATH HOUSE, METHIRI P.O., RAMAPURAM VIA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA-686576.

¶22

8 SONY ANTONY, AERATH HOUSE, METHIRI P.O., RAMAPURAM VIA,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA-686576.

¶23

R1, R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN R1, R5 BY SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW, SC, RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT SR.GP. V.VINOD

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 10576/18

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court

¶29

alleging that respondents 7 and 8 have illegally reclaimed certain lands, which are included in the Data Bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC for short), under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Paddy Land Act’ for short) and therefore, that they have preferred Ext.P4 representation before the 2^nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO for short), to cause an investigation into this and to take appropriate

¶30

action against the said respondents. They allege that even though the Village Officer has issued a Stop Memo to respondents 7 and 8, they continue to illegally reclaim paddy land and therefore, that immediate action be directed to be taken by the RDO in this regard.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for

¶32

WPC 10576/18

¶33

¶34

respondents 7 and 8 submits that a detailed

¶35

counter affidavit has been placed on record wherein, they have asserted that the allegations in this writ petition have been made by the petitioners with gross malafides, because they have only renovated an old pond in their property and that the soil therefrom was used to prevent its inundation due to the accumulation of rain water and sludge from the properties of the petitioners. He says that the attempt of the petitioners is only to ruin the agricultural operations of his clients and that the further allegation-that the digging of the pond in their property has created waterlogging in other paddy fields-is incorrect and without

¶36

factual basis. He says that Exts.P3 and P4 complaints are seen to have been filed by the petitioners immediately after the survey and measurements were carried on by the Taluk Surveyor, on the basis of a complaint preferred

¶37

WPC 10576/18

¶38

¶39

by the petitioners; and therefore, that this

¶40

will clearly indicate the gross malafides involved and thus prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶41

Sri.V.Vinod, learned Senior Government

¶42

Pleader, submits that there does not appear to be any legal impediment in the competent officials making an investigation into the allegation of the petitioners, but that the

¶43

Authority vested with the jurisdiction under the Paddy Land Act is the District Collector, who can act under Section 13 of the said Act.

¶44

He says that, therefore, the petitioners must move an appropriate application before the said Authority under Section 13 of the Paddy Land Act, since the RDO cannot take any action under the said provision even if Ext.P4 is taken up and disposed of. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be ordered on such terms.

¶45

When I consider the above submissions,

¶46

¶47

WPC 10576/18

¶48

it is without doubt that whatever be the contentions of the parties against each other,

¶49

the specific allegation of the petitioners against respondents 7 and 8 is that they are illegally converting a 'paddy land'. Without saying that these allegations are true or otherwise, I am certain that this should be looked into by the District Collector, as and

¶50

when the petitioners approach him with an appropriate application under Section 13 of the Paddy Land Act.

¶51

Resultantly, I close this writ petition without acceding to any of the reliefs sought for; however, granting liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate application under Section 13 of the Paddy Land Act before the District Collector, and if this is done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the said Authority will hear both sides and take a final

¶52

WPC 10576/18

¶53

¶54

decision; however, adverting specifically to the contentions of respondents 7 and 8 as have been stated in this writ petition, which they are also at liberty to place before the said Authority.

¶55

The afore exercise shall be completed by the District Collector as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date on which the application is preferred before him by the petitioners in terms of this judgment.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 10576/18

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶64

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.3943287 DATED 28.12.2015 OF THE FIRST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.4.2013 BY THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.46912/17/TC DATED 27.4.2017 OF THE O/O. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.4.2017 BEFORE THE RDO.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORK ON THE PADDY LAND OF 7TH AND 8TH RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 26.02.2019
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.02.2019.

¶65

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶66

EXHIBIT R7 A	TRUE COPY 12.3.2014 PANCHAYAT.	OF THE FILED	COMPLAINT DATED BEFORE THE
EXHIBIT R7 B	TRUE COPY	OF THE	DECISION DATED
	13.6.2014	OF THE	RAMAPURAM PANCHAYAT
EXHIBIT R7 C	TRUE COPY	OF THE	FORWARDING LETTER
	DATED 16.6	.2014

¶67

WPC 10576/18

¶68

¶69

EXHIBIT	R7 D	TRUE COPY OF THE 24.2.2017	COMPLAINT DATED
EXHIBIT	R7 E	TRUE COPY OF THE THE SURVEY MEASU PROPOSED TO BE C 24.4.2017	NOTICE REGARDING REMENT WHICH WAS ONDUCTED ON
EXHIBIT	R7 F	TRUE COPY OF THE PREPARED BY THE THERETO,ISSUED U INFORMATION ACT,	REPORT AND SKETCH SURVEYOR PURSUANT NDER THE RIGHT TO 2005
EXHIBIT	R7 G	TRUE COPY OF THE 21.9.2017	COMPLAINT DATED

Jose John v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose John v. the District Collector

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

Naseema, Vs the Convener (Agriculture Officer)

Dr.M.a.Muhammed Afsal, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Surathmaja Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

V.v.Raman, Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Confident Projects India Pvt.Ltd Vs the State of Kerala

R.Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Konni Grama Panchayath