Disposed

Jayalakshmi C., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Feb 2019WP(C)/3258/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought removal of her garden land from the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wet Land Act, 2008 and regularisation for alternate use. The Court directed the authorities to finalise her applications within three months, noting the applicability of Rules, 2018. Petition disposed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to finalise the correction application and the 4th respondent to consider the regularisation application within three months.

Jayalakshmi C., Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

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

¶5

WP(C).No. 3258 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

JAYALAKSHMI C., AGED 51 YEARS W/O CHANDRAN, MUTTIMAMPALLAM, NATTUKAL P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678554.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.RAJEEV

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

2 LLMC (LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE), AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOZHINJAMPARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678555.

¶12

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, VALIYAVALLANPPATHY VILLAGE, NATTUKAL P.O., CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678554.

¶13

4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶14

SRI. P.M.MANOJ,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 3258 of 2019

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Petitioner is the owner of an extent of 0.0202 hectors of property situate in Re.Survey No.354/3/1 of Valiyavallampathi Village, Chittur Taluk, Kozhinjampara Panchayat, Palakkad District. The case of the petitioner is that, though the property is remaining as a garden land, it is included in the data bank constituted as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2008 for short) and also remaining in the village records and BTR as paddy field. Even though an application was submitted by the petitioner, earlier, it was found to be defective as per Ext.P4 order dated 21.12.2018, and it was declined also on the reason that, already the applications received was considered and forwarded to the superior authority. Thereupon, now petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 application before the 2^nd respondent, seeking removal of the property from the data bank and Ext.P5 application before the 4^th respondent seeking regularisation and permission for utilisation of the property for other purposes other than paddy cultivation and agricultural operations and seeks appropriate directions.

¶20

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶21

WP(C).No. 3258 of 2019

¶22

¶23

Learned Senior Government Pleader has pointed out that consequent to the introduction of Rules, 2018 to regulate the proceedings under Section 27A of Act, 2008 as amended by Act, 2018, petitioner may have to submit an application in the statutory format, before the 4^th respondent.

¶24

I find force in the said contention, since the application is dated 07.12.2018 ie. after the appointed date, 30.12.2017, on which date the amended provisions of Act, 2008 came into force and the petitioners have a case that the property was converted prior to the introduction of Act, 2008, and it is remaining in an irreversible condition as a paddy field. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2^nd respondent to finalise Exts.P2 application, in accordance with law, at the earliest and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioners are submitting an application before the 4^th respondent as per the format prescribed under Rules, 2018, it shall be considered in accordance with law, and attain finality at the earliest and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of the order from the Local Level Monitoring Committee, applying the parameters and stipulations contained under Section 27A of Act, 2008 as amended by Act, 2018. Petitioners are directed to produce copy of the writ petition along with the appendant documents before the statutory authority

¶25

WP(C).No. 3258 of 2019

¶26

¶27

for appropriate action.

¶28

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Jm/

WP(C).No. 3258 of 2019

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.4.2018 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶38

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION ALONG WITH REQUEST IN THE REQUIRED FORMAT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.12.2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR APPLICATION FOR DATA BANK CORRECTION

¶39

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION U/S 6(2) OF KERALA LAND UTILIZATION ORDER 1967 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT

Jayalakshmi C., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayalakshmi C., 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

Joe Rodrigues Vs Mohammed Y. Safirulla

Safe Homes Developers Private Limited Vs Kannur Muncipal Corporation

Raja and Rajas Saw Mill and Timbers (P) Ltd., Vs Irinjalakuda Municipality

Varkey V.A. Vs a.Hemachandran, I.P.S.

Abdul Samad, Vs State of Kerala

Ciby Chacko, Vs State of Kerala