Disposed

Naseema, v. the Convener (Agriculture Officer)

Kerala HC12 Dec 2019WP(C)/33928/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee to dispose of the petitioner's application to remove her land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, within three months, after affording her an opportunity of being heard.

What did the court decide?

The LLMC was directed to dispose of the application within three months after hearing the petitioner and obtaining satellite imagery.

Naseema, Vs the Convener (Agriculture 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

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.33928 OF 2019(M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NASEEMA, AGED 47 YEARS W/O NAZEER, AMMAKUNNEL HOUSE, VALIYAKANDAM KARA, KATAPPANA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE CONVENER (AGRICULTURE OFFICER) LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA,CONSERVATION OF PADDY AND WET LAND ACT UDUMBANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, UDUMBANNOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 595

¶11

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PAINAVU IDUKKI, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶12

SRI.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, SR.GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.33928 OF 2019

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner have approached this Court asserting that her property, having an extent of 16.15 ares comprised of in Sy.No.223/9, 223/8 of Udumabannoor Village is not a paddy land and therefore, outside the ambit of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act' for short), but that it has been incorrectly included in the draft/final Data Bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) under the provisions of the said Act.

¶18

The petitioner maintains that the property in question has been remaining as a garden land/dry land for the last several years, if not for decades and therefore, she has made Exhibit P1 application before the LLMC under the provisions of Rule 4(6) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules and prays that the same be directed to be taken up and disposed of at the earliest.

¶19

The petitioner also submits that in addition to the above, she has preferred Exhibit P2 application under Section 27A of the Act before the RDO and pleads that after Exhibit P1 application is considered and disposed of, thus leading to removal of the property from the Data Bank, the RDO be

¶20

WP(C).No.33928 OF 2019

¶21

¶22

directed to take up Exhibit P2 application and allow the same without any further delay thereafter.

¶23

The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents submits that there is no legal impediment in considering the above applications, if they are still pending and prays that this Court make no affirmative declaration on the entitlement of the petitioner to any relief as sought for by her in the applications and leave it to the said Authority to take an apposite decision in terms of law.

¶24

Taking note of the afore submissions, I order this writ petition and direct the 1^st respondent - LLMC to take up Exhibit P1 application of the petitioner and dispose of the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to her and obtaining necessary satellite imagery and reports from the concerned officials, leading to a final order as to whether the property in question can be removed from the draft/final Data Bank as requested by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶25

Needless to say, the petitioner, as and when called upon to do so, shall remit the necessary fee for obtaining the satellite images as ordered above.

¶26

If, after the afore exercise is completed, the property of the petitioner is found liable to be removed from the Data Bank, then the 2^nd

¶27

WP(C).No.33928 OF 2019

¶28

¶29

respondent - RDO will take up Exhibit P2 application and dispose of the same, after following due procedure as quickly as possible but not later than two

¶30

months thereafter.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

sru

¶35

WP(C).No.33928 OF 2019

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY FROM THE DATA BANK.

¶39

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION.

¶40

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

Naseema, v. the Convener (Agriculture Officer)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naseema, v. the Convener (Agriculture Officer)

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

Aseena.T.M Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer(R.D.O.)

Vaniyamkulam Grama Panchayath Vs the District Collector

Princy Anto, Vs the Geologist

Dr.M.a.Muhammed Afsal, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Surathmaja Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Soudha Beevi Vs Kizhuvilam Grama Panchayat