Allowed

Gineesh Chandran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Oct 2019WP(C)/22030/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions were filed concerning the illegal operation of a stone crusher on forest land assigned under the 1993 Rules. The court directed the District Collector to investigate violations and take action within five months. A petition seeking land use relaxation was dismissed as infructuous since the land had been transferred.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the District Collector to investigate violations and take action within five months; interim stay continued; other writ dismissed as infructuous.

Gineesh Chandran 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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 30TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.22030 OF 2019(C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GINEESH CHANDRAN, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN, VELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MULLIRIKKUDI.P.O., MULLIRIKKUDI, IDUKKI TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685571.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ SRI.V.HARISH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA, PAINAV.P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685603.

¶12

3 SUB-COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM, SUB COLLECTOR BUNGALOW, KANNAN DEVAN HILLS, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685613.

¶13

4 VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KONNATHADY, IDUKKI COLONY, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685563.

¶14

5 SAJI ULAHANNAN, S/O.ULAHANNAN, RESIDING AT PANTHAPPALLIL HOUSE, NEDUMKANDAM.P.O., IDUKKI-685553.

¶15

6 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MUNNAR DIVISION, MUNNAR-NADAYAR ROAD, NULLATANNI, MUNNAR.P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685612.

¶16

R1-4 BY SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW A KUZHALANADAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.SUDEEP ARAVIND PANICKER R5 BY ADV. KUM.APARNA SATHIANATHAN R5 BY ADV. SHRI.KURIAKOSE VARGHESE

¶17

BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER(FOREST) SRI.SANDESH RAJA

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).24624/2019(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.22030 OF 2019(C) &

¶20

WP(C).No.24624 OF 2019(C)

¶21

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶25

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 30TH ASWINA, 1941

¶26

WP(C).No.24624 OF 2019(C)

¶27

PETITIONER:

¶28

SAJI ULAHANNAN AGED 46 YEARS S/O.ULAHANNAN, RESIDING AT PANTHAPPALLIL HOUSE, NEDUMKANDAM (P.O.), IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685553.

¶29

BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW A KUZHALANADAN SHRI.KURIAKOSE VARGHESE SRI.SUDEEP ARAVIND PANICKER KUM.APARNA SATHIANATHAN

¶30

RESPONDENTS:

¶31

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695001.

¶32

2 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695001.

¶33

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU (P.O.), IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-695603.

¶34

R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).22030/2019(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

WP(C).No.22030 OF 2019(C) & WP(C).No.24624 OF 2019(C)

¶37

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

As both these writ petitions involve a common issue they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment.

¶40

W.P(C).No.22030 of 2019 is preferred by a resident in Idukki District aggrieved by the operation of a stone crusher unit by the 5^th respondent. In his Writ Petition, it is his case that the land where the stone crusher unit is functioning was assigned to the predecessor in interest of the 5^th respondent in terms of the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupations of Forest Lands prior to 01.01.1977) Special Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1993 Rules'). It is his case therefore that, going by Rule 3 of the said Rules, the 5^th respondent, who succeeded to the land, cannot use the said land other than for the purposes of agriculture, house sites or for shop sites. It is pointed out that as of now the land is being used for operating a crusher unit, and hence the 5^th respondent has violated the specific terms of assignment under the 1993 Rules. The prayer in the Writ Petition is essentially for a direction to the official respondents of the State to act on Ext.P2 report

¶41

WP(C).No.22030 OF 2019(C) & WP(C).No.24624 OF 2019(C)

¶42

¶43

of the Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), where a suggestion is made with regard to violation of the terms of the 1993 Rules as also various other infractions of law committed by the 5^th respondent on the land in question. The petitioner in particular seeks a direction to the official respondents to ensure that the stone crusher unit operated by the 5^th respondent is stopped and immediate action taken based on Ext.P2 report for resumption of the land from the 5^th respondent.

¶44

Through a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, it is stated that, after receipt of Ext.P2 report of the RDO, the RDO, Idukki has been directed by the District Collector to make further enquiries in the matter and to submit a report to him as regards the allegation with respect to the assigned land comprised in Re-Survey No.220/7 and 220/8. It is stated that, on receipt of the necessary reports, orders will be passed by the District Collector on the representation preferred by the petitioner before him. Referring to the action taken by the 5^th respondent in the meanwhile, of approaching the Government invoking Section 24 of the Land Assignment Rules of 1964 read with Rule 20 of the 1993 Rules for permission to relax the conditions in the Patta issued to his predecessor so as to enable him to operate the crusher unit in the assigned land, it is stated that by

¶45

WP(C).No.22030 OF 2019(C) & WP(C).No.24624 OF 2019(C)

¶46

¶47

Ext.R5(c) proceedings dated 10.04.2017, the Government has rejected the said request made by the 5^th respondent. It might be relevant to note at this stage that Ext.R5(c) order of the Government is impugned by the 5^th respondent in W.P(C).No.24624 of 2019, where he is the petitioner. It is also significant to note that while there is a stay in operation against the functioning of the crushing unit on the land in question, the said land has been transferred by the 5^th respondent, who has ceased to have any interest over the land in question, and the land itself has been subjected to multiple transactions thereafter and is in the hands of a third person now.

¶48

I have heard the learned counsel Sri.Harish Vasudevan appearing for the petitioner in W.P(C).No.22030 of 2019, Dr.Mathew Kuzhalnadan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C).No.24624 of 2019 and the 5^th respondent in W.P(C).No.22030 of 2019 and also Sri.S.Kannan, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents of the State in both these Writ Petitions.

¶49

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, inasmuch as the prayer sought for in the W.P(C).No.22030 of 2019 is concerned, I take note of the stand of the official respondents of the State in the counter affidavit filed in the

¶50

WP(C).No.22030 OF 2019(C) & WP(C).No.24624 OF 2019(C)

¶51

¶52

said Writ Petition and direct the 2^nd respondent District Collector to take note of Ext.P2 report of the Sub Collector as also any further report obtained from the RDO and other Revenue Authorities, and thereafter, to take a decision as to whether or not any action needs to be taken against the existing owners of the land in Sy.No.220/7, Block No.29 in terms of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Rules read with Rule 16 of the the 1993 Rules. If the 2^nd respondent is of the view that such action is warranted, then the procedure contemplated under the said enactments shall be followed vis-a-vis the 5^th respondent as also the subsequent assignees of the land and a final decision taken within an outer time limit of 5 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. In the said proceedings, if any initiated, the petitioner in W.P(C).No.22030 of 2019 shall also be heard.

¶53

As regards W.P(C).No.24624 of 2019, I find that Ext.P4 order of the Government was impugned by the petitioner therein at a time when the land in question was in his ownership and possession and the prayer of the petitioner therein was for a permission to use the land for the crusher unit through a relaxation of the patta condition as envisaged under Rule 20 of the 1993 Rules as well as Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. While the said request was turned down through Ext.P4 order dated 10.04.2017, inasmuch as the petitioner has

¶54

WP(C).No.22030 OF 2019(C) &

¶55

WP(C).No.24624 OF 2019(C)

¶56

since transferred the land in respect of which the request was made before the Government, the said Writ Petition has virtually become infructuous in relation to the petitioner. I therefore dismiss the said writ Petition as infructuous. I also take note of the interim order that was passed in W.P(C).No.22030 of 2019 restraining the carrying on of any crushing operations in the land in Sy.No.220/7 and direct that the said interim order shall continue to be in force till such time as orders are passed by the 2^nd respondent as directed in this judgment.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶59

mns

¶60

WP(C).No.22030 OF 2019(C) & WP(C).No.24624 OF 2019(C)

¶61

¶62

*The following corrections are effected in the common judgment dated 22.10.2019 in WP(C).No.22030/2019 and WP(C).No.24624/2019 as per order dated 20.2.2020 in R.P.No.1254/2019 in WP(C).No.22030/2019.

¶63

(i) The words 'Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Rules' occurring in para 5 of the common judgment dated 22.10.2019 is substituted as 'Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules'.

¶64

(ii) The outer time limit of 'five months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment' occurring in paragraph 5 of the common judgment is modified as 'five months from the date of receipt of a copy of order dated 20.2.2020 in R.P.No.1254/2019 in WP(C).No.22030/2019.

¶65

Sd/Vacation Officer

¶66

WP(C).No.22030 OF 2019(C) &

¶67

WP(C).No.24624 OF 2019(C)

¶68

¶69

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22030/2019

¶70

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶71

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PATTA NO.1332 IN LA.1669/93 DATED 10.11.1994. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE RDO, IDUKKI. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.4.2019 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶72

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶73

EXHIBIT R5 A	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.593/15/RD DATED 11-11-2015.
EXHIBIT R5 B	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25-07- 2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R5 C	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT DATED 10-04- 2017.
EXHIBIT R5(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2(A)	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 04.06.2018 IN WP(C).NO.29872/2017
EXHIBIT R2(B)	A TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 22.08.2019 ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R5(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶74

//TRUE COPY//

¶75

P.A TO JUDGE

¶76

WP(C).No.22030 OF 2019(C) &

¶77

WP(C).No.24624 OF 2019(C)

¶78

¶79

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24624/2019

¶80

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶81

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA ASSIGNING LAND TO MR.K.R.KRISHNAN BEARING NUMBER 1332 AND DATED 10.11.1994.

¶82

EXHIBIT P1 B TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA ASSIGNING LAND TO MR.MOHANAN BEARING NUMBER 427 AND DATED 28.06.2000. EXHIBIT P1 C TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA ASSIGNING LAND TO MR.ESTHAPPAN BEARING NUMBER 227 AND DATED 09.07.1982. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.593/15/REVENUE DATED 11.11.2015. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.07.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT DATED 10.4.17.

¶83

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.456/2010/RD.

¶84

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶85

EXHIBIT R3(A): A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2016 IN W.P(C).NO.619/2016

¶86

//TRUE COPY//

¶87

P.A TO JUDGE

Gineesh Chandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gineesh Chandran 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

Kallara Village Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.3123, Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds)

Madappally Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

Vakathanam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

K.Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Shan, Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

A K Varghese Vs the District Collector