Dismissed

Clifton Pinheiro v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Feb 2019WP(C)/4093/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP(C).No. 4093 of 2019, the High Court of Kerala held that the writ petition filed by an owner challenging orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 was not maintainable at this stage as revision before the State Government was the appropriate remedy.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable at this stage; liberty granted to prefer revision before the State Government.

Clifton Pinheiro Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 23RD MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4093 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

CLIFTON PINHEIRO AGED 45 YEARS

¶8

S/O.PETER PINHEIRO, CHEENIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLIPORT.P.O., KOCHI-683 515.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶13

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI-682001, AUTHORISED COMMITTEE, DISTRICT LEVEL.

¶14

4 VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE, VADAKKEKKARA .P.O., ERNAKULAM683522.

¶15

5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AND CONVENOR LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, VADAKKEKKARA, KRISHI BHAVAN, VADAKKEKKARA.P.O., 683522.

¶16

6 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, O/O THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, OPP.MUSEUM, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O., TRIVANDRUM695033.

¶17

SRI. MANURAJ.K.J, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 4093 of 2019

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner,

¶23

owner of an extent of 22.91 Ares of property situated

¶24

in Survey. No. 65/1-3 within the limits of the Moothukunnam Village, Paravur Taluk, Ernakulam

¶25

District, challenging Exts.P13 and P15 orders passed by

¶26

the District Collector and the Land Revenue Commissioner in the primary proceedings as well as the appellate proceedings, respectively, under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967.

¶27

In my considered opinion, petitioner having chosen a track for ventilating his grievances, petitioner has to complete the same, since as per Clause 14 of Order 1967, a revision is maintainable against the order of the Land Revenue Commissioner. I have also gone through Ext.P15 order passed by the appellate authority, and finds that sufficient reasons are assigned and the order is passed by complying with the principles of natural justice.

¶28

In that view of the matter, this writ petition

¶29

is dismissed as not maintainable at this stage of

¶30

WP(C).No. 4093 of 2019

¶31

¶32

proceedings, and leaving open to the liberty of the petitioner to prefer revision before the State Government.

¶33

All the questions of law and fact raised in the

¶34

writ petition are left open to be considered by the statutory authority.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

SPR

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 4093 of 2019

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PLOT.	THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROPERTY.	THE LAND TAX RECEIPT OF
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE	POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
	ISSUED FROM THE RESPONDENT.	OFFICE OF THE 4TH
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF VADAKKEKKARA GRAMA	THE DATA BANK EXTRACT OF PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITIONER BEF	THE REQUEST PREFERRED BY ORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF	OF THE RECEIPT OF THE REQUEST.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFICE OF T REFERENCE NO.46848 22/12/2016.	THE CIRCULAR ISSUED FROM HE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE /P1/2016/ REVENUE DATED
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE PHOTOCOPY WP(C)NO.9775/2017 DATED 07/04/2017.	OF THE JUDGMENT IN OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT	THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DATED 28/04/2017.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RES	THE REPORT REFERRED BY VIDE REFERENCE NO.97/17 PONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT	THE REPORT PREFERRED BY DATED 16/11/2017.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF FROM THE OFFICE O PETITIONER DATED 1	THE INTIMATION ISSUED F 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 9/12/2017.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RESPONDENT VIDE	THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF 5TH REFERENCE NO.K2-
	3727/17/K.DIS. DAT	ED 27/02/2018.

¶45

WP(C).No. 4093 of 2019

¶46

¶47

EXHIBIT P14

¶48

TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC.NO.15954/2018 DATED 28/05/2018.

¶49

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT VIDE REF.NO.L.R.A(1)24618/2018 DATED 29/08/2018.

¶50

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.

Clifton Pinheiro v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Clifton Pinheiro 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph Cheriyan Vs Minimol Thomas

K.M.Haris Vs District Collector

Sajana Haffiz Vs State of Kerala

Niza, Vs State of Kerala to Be Represented by Secretary

Vinod Kumar Vs Dr.S.Karthikeyan

Lakshmi, Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation