Disposed

Kochukunju. M v. the District Collector

Kerala HC21 Feb 2019WP(C)/2683/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order directing land reconversion. The Court held that a statutory appeal remedy existed under the relevant Order and relegated the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy, allowing liberty to file the appeal with consideration for the pending writ challenge causing delay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner relegated to appellate remedy under Kerala Land Utilisation Order 1967; liberty granted to file appeal within two weeks with delay condoned framework.

Kochukunju. M 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 V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 2683 of 2014

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

KOCHUKUNJU. M KOCHAYYATH HOUSE, ADINADU SOUTH,KATTILKADAVU P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM - 691 001

¶11

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM - 691 001

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ADINADU VILLAGE, KATTILKADAVU P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 518

¶13

*ADDL. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, R4 PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

*** ADDL. R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.02.2019.**

¶15

SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 2683 of 2014

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner is the owner of 21.20 Ares of land

¶21

comprised in Survey Nos. 529/8, 529/9, 529/10 and 529/19 in re-survey block No. 6 in Adinadu Village in

¶22

Karunagappally Taluk in Kollam District. The

¶23

petitioner had purchased the property as per Ext P2

¶24

sale deed dated 28.02.2007. According to the petitioner, after purchasing the property, he

¶25

constructed two residential buildings in Survey Nos. 529/10 and 521/19. It is submitted that the property in question is actually dry land and there is no cultivation in the property for the last fifty years. The coconut and other trees standing in the property are more than thirty years old. In the Basic Tax

¶26

¶27

construction of the buildings in the petitioners property was being carried out, the adjacent property owner submitted a complaint that the constructions are being effected in violation of the provisions of the

¶28

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Based on the complaint, the 2^nd respondent called for a report from the 3^rd respondent and on receipt of

¶29

WP(C).No. 2683 of 2014

¶30

¶31

the same, forwarded the report to the 1^st respondent for

¶32

appropriate action. In Ext P5 report, submitted by the 3^rd respondent, it was specifically stated that the petitioners property is not included in the Data Bank. Therefore, the 1^st respondent proceeded to hold that since the conversion of the petitioners land was prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, the petitioner cannot be found to have violated the provisions of the Act, 2008. Having held so, the 1^st respondent went on to find that, the land having been converted after 1967, there is violation of the provisions of Kerala Land Utilisation Order 1967, and therefore the petitioner was directed to reconvert the land and to make it cultivable with paddy.

¶33

This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by

¶34

Ext P6 order. According to the petitioner, he had purchased the property only in the year 2007. The property was lying as dry land at time when the

¶35

petitioner purchased property, which fact would also be

¶36

evident from Ext P5 report submitted by the 3^rd

¶37

respondent. It is contended that Clause 6 of the

¶38

WP(C).No. 2683 of 2014

¶39

¶40

Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 would apply only in a case where it is found that the land was cultivated for a consecutive period of three years immediately

¶41

prior to 1967 or after 1967 and was thereafter converted for other purposes. It is therefore contended that the finding in Ext P6, that the

¶42

petitioner had violated Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, is without basis.

¶43

The learned Government Pleader submits that

¶44

since Clause 11 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order provides an appeal against Ext P6, the writ petition filed under Article 226 may not be entertained. Even

¶45

though I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the

¶46

specific provision for appeal provided under Clause 11

¶47

of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order I deem it

¶48

appropriate that the petitioner be relegated to avail the appellate remedy provided under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. In the nature of the directions

¶49

being issued in this writ petition, the Land Revenue Commissioner is suo motu impleaded as additional 4^th respondent in this writ petition.

¶50

WP(C).No. 2683 of 2014

¶51

¶52

In the circumstances the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file

¶53

an appeal against Ext P6 order within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If such appeal is filed, the same shall be considered by the additional 4^th respondent, taking into consideration

¶54

the fact that delay in filing the appeal is for the reason that the challenge against Ext P6 order was

¶55

pending before this court in the instant writ petition. Based on the decision taken on the question of delay in filing the appeal and in the event of the appeal being accepted on file, an appropriate decision shall be rendered on the appeal within two months from the date of submission of the appeal by the petitioner.

¶56

The writ petition is disposed of with the

¶57

aforementioned directions.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

SPR

WP(C).No. 2683 of 2014

¶62

¶63

APPENDIX

¶64

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶65

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ADINADU VILLAGE DATED 19-04-2013
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED DATED 28-02-2007 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO. 529/8 OF ADINADU VILLAGE
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE BUILDING IN SURVEY NO. 529/10
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE BUILDING IN SURVEY NO. 529/19
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED NIL
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO L-10-19293/13/K DIS DATED 5-12-2013 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 4-1-2014
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT AS G.O.(P)NO. 85/2018/REVENUE DATED 15-12-2018
EXHIBIT	P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16-10-2017

¶66

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.

Kochukunju. M v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kochukunju. M 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

Nadiya Vahid Vs the Executive Engineer Kerala State Electricity Board

The Manager, Mitup School Vs the State of Kerala

Smt. R.Kalyanikuttyamma Vs State of Kerala

The Manager Vs General Secretary

Thankamani Amma Vs the Managing Director

National Confederation of Officers Association Vs the Deputy Secretary to Government