Disposed

Pushparaj, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC8 Nov 2019WP(C)/14824/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions concerning the inclusion of properties in the Data Bank under the Kerala Paddy Land Act. The court noted that the Local Level Monitoring Committee required further satellite imagery from KSREC. It directed the Committee to complete proceedings, including required inputs, and submit a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer for a final decision within

What did the court decide?

Directed the LLMC to complete proceedings after obtaining satellite images from KSREC and other reports, transmit the report to the RDO, and decide the application within three months.

Pushparaj, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.16353 OF 2019(T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JANAKI AGED 70 YEARS W/O.LATE KANNAN, PUTHUKOLIKUNI HOUSE, THIKKODI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 529.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) SRI.BIJO FRANCIS SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D COUTH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 020.

¶12

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 101.

¶13

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIKKODI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 529.

¶14

4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THIKKODI P.O., PIN-673 529.

¶15

5 THE SECRETARY, THIKKODI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIKKODI P.O., PIN-673 529.

¶16

6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT THIKKODI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 529.

¶17

7 PUSHPARAJ, S/O.KANARAN, KUNNIMEL HOUSE, THIKKODI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 529.

¶18

WP(C).Nos.16353/2019 & 14824 OF 2019

¶19

¶20

R1-4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.KHALID R5 BY ADV. SMT.K.P.SUSMITHA R7 BY ADV. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) R7 BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH R7 BY ADV. SRI.C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT

¶21

SRI.MANURAJ K.J.-GP

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).14824/2019(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

WP(C).Nos.16353/2019 & 14824 OF 2019

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶28

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.14824 OF 2019(C)

¶29

PETITIONER:

¶30

PUSHPARAJ, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.KANARAN, KUNEEMMAL, THIKKODI VILLAGE, KOILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 529. BY ADVS. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH SRI.C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT SRI.T.G.MANOJ SRI.T.G.SANTHOSH SRI.T.G.MAHESH

¶31

RESPONDENTS:

¶32

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA, VADAKARA P.O., KOZHIKODE. 2 THIKKODI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIKKODI P.O., KOILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 529. 3 THE SECRETARY, THIKKODI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THIKKODI P.O., KOILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 529.

¶33

WP(C).Nos.16353/2019 & 14824 OF 2019

¶34

¶35

4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN, THIKKODI P.O., KOILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 529.

¶36

R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.KHALID R2-3 BY ADV. SMT.K.P.SUSMITHA R2-3 BY ADV. SMT.JASILA BEEVI V.K.

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).16353/2019(T), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

WP(C).Nos.16353/2019 & 14824 OF 2019

¶39

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

I am considering these two matters together since the

¶42

factual and legal factors and contentions impelled are common and since the reliefs to be granted in one will certainly influence the reliefs to be granted in the other.

¶43

W.P.(C).No.16353/2019 has been filed by Smt.Janaki,

¶44

opposing the order of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), namely Ext.P5, as per which, the properties comprised of in Survey number 108/4(old) / 108/28(new) owned by the 7^th respondent-Sri.Pushparaj and his father have been ordered to be removed from the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Paddy Land Act for short).

¶45

According to Smt. Janaki, the decision of the LLMC is untenable, since it has been issued without adverting to any of the relevant factors, including the satellite images; and therefore, that same cannot find legal sustenance. She, therefore, prays that this writ petition be allowed and the said decision of the LLMC be quashed.

¶46

WP(C).Nos.16353/2019 & 14824 OF 2019

¶47

¶48

While so, W.P.(C).No.14824 of 2019 has been filed by the afore mentioned Sri.Pushparaj seeking that the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) be directed to take final decision on her application to remove his property from the Data Bank. Sri.Pushparaj relies on the afore mentioned report of the LLMC, which has been produced as Ext. P3 in this writ petition and prays that necessary action be directed to be completed at the earliest.

¶49

I have heard Sri.Jose Kuriakose, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Janaki-petitioner in W.P.(C).No.16353 of 2019; Sri.J.Omprakash; learned counsel appearing for Sri.Pushparajpetitioner in W.P.(C).No.14824 of 2019; Sri.Vinod Singh Cheriyan; learned Standing Counsel appearing for Thikkodi Grama Panchayat in both the cases and the learned Government Pleader; Sri.Manauraj K.J appearing on behalf of the official respondents.

¶50

As is evident from the afore narration, the sole question is whether the properties of Sri.Pushparaj and his father are liable to be excluded from the Data Bank. As is evident from

¶51

the order impugned in W.P.(C).No.16353 of 2019, namely Ext.P5, the LLMC appears to have taken a decision in principle to do so.

¶52

WP(C).Nos.16353/2019 & 14824 OF 2019

¶53

¶54

However, interestingly, the learned Government Pleader has produced on record another decision of the LLMC, which is seen taken about a year later on 23.09.2019, wherein it has been decided that before excluding the properties of Sri.Pushparaj and his father from the Data Bank, the report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing Environment Centre (KSREC) is necessary. Obviously, therefore, the earlier decision of the LLMC, relied upon by Sri.Pushparaj and opposed by Smt.Janaki, cannot be now allowed to operate, since they themselves have taken a fresh decision, which is evident from the afore document produced by the learned Government Pleader, that a final view on Sr.Pushparaj's application can be taken only after obtaining the relevant satellite images.

¶55

Resultantly, I dispose of W.P.(C).No.16353 of 2019 and W.P. (C).No.14824 of 2019, directing the LLMC to complete the proceedings based on the application of Sri.Pushparaj, after obtaining all necessary inputs, including the satellite images from the KSREC and reports from the other competent Authorities; and then transmit their report, along with the application of Sri.Pushparaj and his father to the RDO, as expeditiously as is

¶56

¶57

WP(C).Nos.16353/2019 & 14824 OF 2019

¶58

possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶59

On the RDO receiving the report from the LLMC, he will then proceed to decide the application of Sri.Pushparaj and his father, after affording an opportunity to them of being heard as well as to Smt.Janaki, and then issue a final order as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months after he receives the report from the LLMC.

¶60

Needless to say, if, through the afore exercise, Sri.Pushparaj and his father are able to obtain orders in their favour, then they will be at liberty to approach the Panchayat appropriately and seek further reliefs, subject to the requirement that may be insisted by the Authorities under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶63

JUDGE

¶64

nak

¶65

WP(C).Nos.16353/2019 & 14824 OF 2019

¶66

¶67

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16353/2019

¶68

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶69

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RDO VADAKARA. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.02.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.02.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, THIKKODI GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE HELD ON 16.07.2018. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.05.2019 OF THE PETITIONER D=SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.05.2019 OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1459/2013 OF SRO PAYYOLI. EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3518/2014 OF SRO PAYYOLI. EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3140/2014 OF SRO PAYYOLI.

¶70

WP(C).Nos.16353/2019 & 14824 OF 2019

¶71

¶72

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14824/2019

¶73

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶74

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF GIFT DEED DATED 7/6/2018 EXECUTED BY THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER.

¶75

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT DATED 9/10/2018 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT.

¶76

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES DATED 16/7/2018 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶77

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15/2/2019.

¶78

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 5/4/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶79

RESPONDNETS' EXHIBITS

¶80

EXHIBIT R3(A) COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A3-4245/2018 DATED 16-10-2018 TO THE PETITINER

¶81

EXHIBIT R3(B) COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A3-4245/2018 DATED 31-12-2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITINER

¶82

EXHIBIT R3(C) COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT) NO: 4592/2017 REVENUE DATED 31.10.2017.

¶83

//TRUE COPY//

¶84

P.A TO JUDGE

Pushparaj, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushparaj, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lubina S Muhammed Vs the State of Kerala

Karunakaran Vs State of Kerala

Malappuram District Panchayath, Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Biju Vs State of Kerala

Vanaja K. Vs Palakkad Municipality

T.T.Abdul Rasak Vs Wandoor Grama Panchayath