Partly allowed

Gopinathan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2019WP(C)/11875/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted liberty to the petitioners to file an application under Section 27A(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 regarding their property converted before 1967. The court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the application within three months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file application under Section 27A(3) of the Paddy Land Act within two weeks; RDO to dispose within three months.

Gopinathan Vs State of Kerala — 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 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.11875 OF 2019(H)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 GOPINATHAN AGED 57 YEARS S/O. LATE PADMAVATHIYAMMA, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, MARADU P.O, KUNDANNUR, KOCHI.

¶8

2 BALACHANDRAN, S/O. LATE PADMAVATHIYAMMA, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, MARADU P.O, KUNDANNUR,KOCHI. 3 VALSALA, W/O. LATE MUKUNDAN MENON, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, MARADU P.O, KUNDANNUR, KOCHI. 4 P. BINDU D/O. LATE MUKUNDAN MENON, VALLIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, MARADU P.O, KUNDANUR, KOCHI.

¶9

5 P. SMITHA AGED 44 YEARS D/O. LATE MUKUNDAN MENON, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, MARADU P.O, KUNDANNUR, KOCHI BY ADVS. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE SMT.V.A.HARITHA SRI.SIDHARTH B PRASAD SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL SHRI.ASWIN KUMAR M J

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM-682 030

¶12

3 THE TAHASILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682 3013.

¶13

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARADU, ERNAKULAM-682 0304.

¶14

WP(C).No.11875 OF 2019(H)

¶15

¶16

5 THE SECRETARY, MARADU MUNICIPALITY, ERNAKULAM-682 304

¶17

BY SRI.T.R.RAJAN - SC

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

GP - RON BASTIN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.11875 OF 2019(H)

¶22

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The petitioners submit that their property, comprised of 29.27 Ares in Re.Sy.Nos.225/17, 225/18 and 225/19 of Maradu Village, have been converted much prior to the year 1967 and are not 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, 2008 ('the Paddy Land Act' for short).

¶25

According to the petitioners, they commenced construction in the said property on the strength of a valid Building Permit obtained from Maradu Municipality, but that when it was sought to be renewed, they refused to do so, stating that the property is included as a 'paddy land' in the Basic Tax Register and the Revenue Records and therefore, that they must obtain necessary clearance from the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO for short) under the provisions of Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act.

¶26

The petitioners say that the afore stand of the Municipality is contrary to law, since their property having been converted much prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Land

¶27

WP(C).No.11875 OF 2019(H)

¶28

¶29

Utilization Order (KLU Order for short), they are not liable to obtain any permission under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act. They, therefore, pray that the properties in question be declared to be not covered by the provisions of the Paddy Land Act and to be treated as 'dry land/converted land' for all purposes, including assessment to Land Tax.

¶30

The learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submits that even if the factual assertions of the petitioners as afore are correct, they must approach the RDO under Section 27A(3) of the Paddy Land Act, since this provision has a specific mechanism for dealing with the properties which have been converted prior to 01.04.1967. He says that if the petitioners make an appropriate application before the RDO, certainly the said Authority will consider the same, provided, they are able to establish that the property was converted prior to 01.04.1967, which is the date on which the Kerala Land Utilization Order was brought into force.

¶31

On hearing the learned Government Pleader as afore, the learned counsel for the petitioners - Sri.P.Sreekumar, submits that his clients will make an apposite application before the RDO, under the provisions of Section 27A(3) of the Paddy Land Act and

¶32

WP(C).No.11875 OF 2019(H)

¶33

¶34

prays that this application be directed to be taken up and disposed of at the earliest.

¶35

Resultantly and for the reasons above, I order this writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioners to make an appropriate application under the provisions of Section 27A(3) of the Paddy Land Act; and if this is done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, same shall be considered by the competent RDO, after following due procedure and a resultant order thereon will be issued not later than three months from the date on which such application is received.

¶36

Needless to say, since I have not considered the contention of the petitioners that the property in question has been converted in 1967 affirmatively, it will be upto the RDO to assess this issue and upto the petitioners to prove this through cogent and reliable evidence, which they are at liberty to produce before the said Authority.

¶37

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶38

SD/-

¶39

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

¶42

WP(C).No.11875 OF 2019(H)

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPIES OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF BASIC TAX IN RESPECT OF 2018-19
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. A1- 1(2) 511/05-06 DATED 28.11.2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED AS PER ORDER NO. A.1(2) 511/05.06 DATED 31.1.2007.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FOR THE RECEIPT OF THE PERMIT FEE.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 4.6.2007.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.9.2012 IN W.P.(C) NO. 25948 OF 2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.01.2013 IN W.A. NO. 2227 OF 2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED AS NO. A-1 (2) 511/05-06 DATED 13.12.2013.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KSEB FOR THE WORKSHOP UPON THE SAID LAND DATED 20.07.1996.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT STATE OF THE PROPERTY.

Gopinathan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopinathan 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

Baby K.D Vs the Director of Mining and Geology

Manoj Tharakan Jose Vs the District Geologist

Kalladichola Harijan Colony Committee Vs the District Collector

T.Radhakrishnan Vs the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation

Jayasree.K.N, Vs Cheranelloor Grama Panchayath

Sajeeda Beevi Vs Pathanamthitta Municipality